Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Expert witness testimony in the Plantation cops mortgage fraud trial that the government doesn't want the jury to hear.


Tough business defending yourself in a criminal trial, let alone a criminal trial in federal court.  The defendants indicted in the Plantation cops mortgage fraud case have turned to the testimony of expert witnesses in the field of mortgage, real estate and financial fraud to help in their defense, there's on small problem though, the prosecutors don't want the jury to hear what the experts have to say.  Let's take a look at the testimony that the prosecutors find objectionable, first from noted mortgage and real estate fraud expert, Curt Novy...

Curt Novy Expert Oppinion in Plantation Cops Mortgage Fraud Case

In a nutshell, Mr. Novy shares many of our same sentiments regarding the banks complicity in these alleged frauds and considering that the defense strategy of at least one of the defendants involves implicating the banks, you'd think this is critical for their defense.

Now, let's look at the expert opinion of Jeanne Delormier from Diligence Solutions, Inc, another expert in the field of real estate and mortgage fraud...

Jeanne DeLormier Expert Opinion in Plantation Cops Mortgage Fraud Case

Nothing ground breaking there, Ms. Delomier's conclusions are ones that anyone with a modicum of common sense could reach and her conclusions are obviously beneficial to the defendants. 

So what's the problem with these experts?  The prosecutors filed a motion to have the most damaging parts of their testimony (at least in our opinion) excluded from the trial.  Here are some examples of the testimony the government wants kept from the jury...
... lenders intentionally developed lax underwriting guidelines.

...lenders did not utilize prudent underwriting and risk management practices.

...lenders did not utilize prudent underwriting and risk management practices.
Isn't this what we've been saying all along?
...formed opinions that there were multiple identified areas where the lender/underwriter/reviewer had opportunities to notice discrepancies in documentation or items provided by the broker and/or title company
Very few factors were considered material in granting credit. Lenders ignored red flags because they knew borrowers did not truly qualify to purchase homes. Factors such as income verification, asset verification were not material to the lenders granting credit.
Of course they ignored obvious red flags, they needed to get the loans no matter what so they could go ahead bundle them and resell them as CDO's.
...borrowers would not have been aware that the Broker was not honest with the Lender.
Does anyone really believe that if the cops who were at the center of these alleged frauds knew that the could risk going to jail by lying on the loan applications that they'd actually go along with it?
In my opinion, the Brokers and in some cases the Title Company participated together to encourage the borrowers to just sign the documents to close the loan, as neither Broker nor Title gets paid if until the loan closes
Duh, I can't speak for the title company but you can bet that the brokers would do anything in their power to get a deal closed.

So what's the problem with the testimony from these experts?  What's the government's objection to what they have to say?  Take a look...
...the proposed testimony serves only to paint the lenders as irresponsible and encourage the jury to blame the lender for failing to prevent the fraud.
No kidding?  OF COURSE THE LENDERS WERE IRRESPONSIBLE IN THEIR LENDING PRACTICES!  WTF?!  How could anyone not reach that conclusion!?  Considering that the lenders complicity is an essential part of the defense, how could the court not allow this testimony?  The court hasn't ruled yet, but considering how this court has ruled in the past, the chances of this testimony getting before the jury seem slim.


  1. I sat in on the first trial-and anything that helped the police officers-were thrown out-I am almost 100% sure this will not be allowed !

  2. Why is it that the judge keeps throwing anything out that is pertinent information and helps the defendents? How is this justice? If the information is black and white? I suppose it doesn't matter that the government lied to the grand jury? Or that they submitted information without evidence? Or that the papers they showed the grand jury were different than the ones in trial? Or the fact that this entire case is based on plea deals because the government did not have enough REAL evidence!!! Lives are being destroyed and it seems like no matter what truth the defendants present it will get squashed to protect the government! What if Matt gulla and rene rodriguez said it was all their fault... Would the defendants still be found guilty? The way things are going in trial probably!

  3. WOW ! anonymous said it all !