And we wait
On Wednesday, jurors in the retrial of Edward Mangano, Nassau’s former county executive, and Linda Mangano, his wife, finished up a fourth day of deliberation.
There was no note from them.
And while Edward Mangano made a brief appearance in the courtroom, neither Linda Mangano, nor her attorney, John Carman, did so.
Instead, they spent their time waiting, with supporters, on other floors of the courthouse.
Meanwhile, Kevin Keating, Edward Mangano’s attorney, spent the lion’s share of his day either in the courtroom or in the hallway outside — as the three assistant U.S. attorneys assigned to the case often sat together at the prosecution table.
The jury began deliberations at 9:37 a.m., but jurors did not get testimony they had requested late Tuesday until about an hour later — to the displeasure of U.S. District Court Judge Joan Azrack, who wanted to know why the sides had not agreed the night before on what testimony would go back to the deliberation room.
Jury at work
The transcripts turned over to the jurors on Wednesday — which totaled some 200 to 300 pages — relate to the first three counts against Edward Mangano specified on a verdict sheet, which was delivered to the panel when deliberations began last week.
The counts include bribery, conspiracy and wire fraud.
To reach a decision on each count, however, jurors also will have to consider whether prosecutors at the retrial proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether Mangano had some involvement in Oyster Bay town-backed loans for businessman Harendra Singh, a Nassau contract awarded to a Singh bakery to provide bread and rolls to the county jail, or an emergency contract awarded to Singh to provide food at the county’s emergency operations center after superstorm Sandy.
The testimony they received for review on Wednesday tied only to the Oyster Bay loans.
The judge would decide
Court papers filed Wednesday show that prosecutors and Mangano’s defense attorney have agreed to free jurors from having to decide whether a Panerai Luminor watch should be subject to forfeiture should Mangano be convicted on allegations of bribery, conspiracy, wire fraud or extortion.
Instead, Azrack will decide after a hearing.
According to the filing, in addition to the watch, prosecutors also would seek “a forfeiture money judgment against … [Mangano] for any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of such offenses.”
Singh testified, at the trial and retrial, that Mangano asked him to buy the watch for his son’s 21st birthday.