Brocade witness “recants”; Reyes seeks new trial
Former CEO of Brocade, Greg Reyes, seeks a new trial when a prosecution witness allegedly recanted some of her testimony. Reyes was convicted for securities fraud, in relation to options backdating. The witness responsible for this is Elizabeth Moore, from Brocade’s finance department.
Moore apparently sent an email to Reye’s house manager stating that one of the prosecutor’s (Timothy Crudo) twisted her words, and that he bullied her into saying things she did not intend to say. She said she felt guilty and wanted to fix “this”. This was not the only time Moore has made such comments: A friend of Moore (who still works at Brocade) also heard Moore say such things, as well as Roger Parloff, a writer for Fortune. In an email to Parloff she provided there was a serious miscarriage to justice as a result of the prosecution led by Crudo. She even wrote a letter to the Judge asking for leniency for Reyes. Crudo has no comment right now regarding Moore’s testimony. Moore’s lawyer informed Crudo that if Moore was asked to testify she would invoke the Fifth Amendment. Crudo emailed both Reyes and Stephanie Jenson (Human Resources Chief at Brocade) lawyers informing them of this. Reyes lawyer, Richard Marmaro seeks a court order forcing Crudo to grant Moore to “use immunity” so she can testify as to what she knows. Marmaro sees Moore’s testimony as the heart of the case, and one that Crudo referred to about 25 ties in his closing argument.
The Moore testimony concerns whether, and the degree to which, Brocade’s finance department knew about the options backdating procedures being used by Reyes and Jensen. Judge Charles Breyer did state, “What the finance and accounting departments did or did not know about the scheme is certainly not determinative of Reyes’ criminal liability.” However, the importance of Moore’s “recantation” lies in the prosecutions having argued at trial that Reyes deceived Brocade’s finance department about options backdating. Moore who administered the options plans initially claimed that she was unaware of such options backdating. The argument was that if Reyes kept the scheme secret from the finance department, it implied that he understood options backdating had accounting ramifications and trying to evade from those ramifications illegally. And if not, then Reyes may have mistakenly believed such a procedure was lawful. Moore’s testimony clearly plays a significant role to Reyes trial and a new trial is necessary.
By rparloff
On Friday, Brocade’s former CEO Greg Reyes asked for a new trial on the grounds that a prosecution witness at his trial — the only witness the government chose to call from Brocade’s (BRCD) finance department — has allegedly recanted portions of her testimony.
Moore, she was aware, she wasn’t… what’s going on here? A man’s future lies in the real truth, not what the government says is the truth.
I think this falls back on the prosecutor’s bullying her. She was probably really intimidated by the government.
Clearly, Moore felt guilty and wanted to “fix this”. I feel that anyone who really knew Greg would never have anything negative to say. I think she truly was bullied and almost talked into saying those things.
I am glad they are seeking a new trial. The truth is finally coming out despite the government’s misconduct. Reyes wants to prove the man he really is.
Well I sincerely hope Reyes seeks a new trial… The prosecutors lied about the supposed acts he committed. The man is innocent, he did nothing wrong.
How can they say that what the finance department did or did not know is not a determination of Reyes’ criminal liability? When it comes down to legal or illegal depending on if you report the backdating to the finance department or not? And he did report it.
It looks to me like prosecutor Adam Reeves is getting most of the bad wrap in the Reyes case (which he should), however, this Timothy Crudo is just as dangerous twisting the words of an important witness for Reyes’ case.
Reyes seeks a new trial and he got his new trial. However, only a few weeks into his new trial the defense team is requesting a mistrial (or in the least to strike the testimony of one witness) due to false statements. Where does the prosecution find these witnesses? They are all liars.