 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Lawyer accused in scam wins reversal on appealBy GRAHAM BRINK
© St. Petersburg Times, An appellate court has reversed the conviction of a St. Petersburg lawyer accused in an investment scam that netted $11-million. Douglas Joseph Burns, who was out on bail, faced nearly six years in prison before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta released its decision Friday. The court decided that the trial judge had erred in not letting defense attorneys fully cross-examine a key witness. Burns' trial lawyer, Eddie Suarez, was pleased by the decision. "We thought we were right at the time," Suarez said. "But you never know, and with so much on the line it's tough to wait for it." Burns, who could not be reached for comment, could face a new trial, depending on how federal prosecutors proceed. In 1999, a jury convicted Burns of racketeering, money laundering and mail fraud, among other charges. According to authorities, Burns acted as the escrow agent for an investment program that promised returns of 500 percent to 1,000 percent, supposedly stemming from "secondary debt markets in Europe." Investors who gave a minimum of $300,000 were offered assurance letters from Egyptian and Australian banks. But the prosecutor said the markets didn't exist, the letters were phony and the money was spent by the defendants on luxury cars and real estate. At trial, Anwar Heidary testified as a key witness for the prosecution. U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bucklew refused to allow Suarez and the other attorneys to cross-examine Heidary about the fact that he was a defendant in a class-action lawsuit filed by investors who lost money in bank trading programs, including the one involved in Burns' case. The defense argued that Heidary had a motive to blame Burns and his co-defendants for the losses. If Burns and the others were convicted, Heidary would be able to claim at his civil trial that he was not to blame. "Deflecting the blame for his investors' losses would have greatly assisted his defense in the class-action suit," the appellate judges wrote. Jurors acquitted Burns of several mail fraud charges but convicted him on those charges relating to Heidary's testimony. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution secures a defendant's right to confront, and cross-examine, all witnesses. The appellate court decided that the defense attorneys should have been allowed to question Heidary more than Judge Bucklew allowed. The appellate judges said the problem was aggravated by Heidary telling jurors in an elevator that he was upset because the defendants "steal your money and then try to be your friend." "Under these circumstances, we cannot say the restriction on cross-examination was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt," the judges stated.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times South Pinellas desks |
