United States: Can Sheldon Silver Beat This?

Last Updated: February 25 2015
Article by Edward J. Loya, Jr.

While addressing a conference room full of New York State Assembly Democrats in the State Capitol less than a week after his arrest on corruption charges, former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver reportedly told fellow lawmakers, "I'm going to beat this." Since that time, scores of articles have been written condemning Silver and the perceived corruption in New York state politics, yet none of the coverage has bothered to ask the obvious question: Can he?

The case against Silver must be reexamined in light of the federal grand jury's decision on February 19 to return a three-count indictment against Silver charging him with honest services mail fraud, honest services wire fraud, and Hobbs Act extortion under "color of official right." The indictment, like the original complaint, charges Silver with orchestrating two separate bribery schemes through which he allegedly received bribe payments concealed as "referral fees" from two law firms that facilitated Silver's corrupt arrangements.

As difficult as the case against Silver might seem at first blush, a closer review of the public information concerning the case suggests that Silver and his lawyers may have a shot at a successful defense—particularly in light of the fact that the government at this stage cannot present the testimony of a single witness who has pleaded guilty to participating in the alleged unlawful "schemes."

Understanding the Government's Burden Of Proof

For federal prosecutors looking to prosecute state and local bribery, honest services fraud and Hobbs Act extortion are the statutes of choice.

In the landmark 2010 case of Skilling v. United States, the Supreme Court limited the scope of the honest services fraud statute to corruption that amounts to bribery or kickbacks. The Hobbs Act "color of official right" extortion theory that is being used against Silver is, substantively, the equivalent of bribery. To prove this offense, the government must establish: (1) that Silver accepted money to which he was not entitled; and (2) that Silver knew at the time that the money was in exchange for some exercise of his official authority. No showing of a demand, shakedown, or inducement by Silver is necessary—Silver's abuse of his office would satisfy the necessary element of coercion.

The "Asbestos Scheme"

The essence of bribery is a quid pro quo, or a corrupt arrangement in which a public official receives something of value in exchange for his agreement to be influenced in the performance of his official position.

Here, in the "asbestos scheme," Silver is charged with using his official position as a New York state assemblyman, to benefit a prominent oncologist who has since been identified as the now-former Director of Columbia University's Mesothelioma Center Dr. Robert N. Taub. Silver is charged with directing a total of $500,000 in state funds to Dr. Taub's research lab, directing $25,000 in state funds to a nonprofit organization where one of Dr. Taub's family members served on the board, and helping Dr. Taub's son obtain employment at a nonprofit organization that received state funding from Silver. As part of the allegedly unlawful arrangement, Dr. Taub allegedly referred close to one hundred victims of asbestos exposure to Silver's law firm Weitz & Luxenberg, which, in turn, paid Silver $3.2 million for the referrals.

A key trial strategy for Silver's defense team will be to show that Silver merely intended to facilitate the research of a preeminent cancer doctor and to assist deserving members of the doctor's immediate family, and that at least in Silver's mind, the work that Silver's firm did on behalf of Dr. Taub's cancer patients was separate from anything he did in his official capacity as a New York state assemblyman. Based on information that has become public since Silver's arrest, this strategy may have traction with jurors.

An esteemed doctor who has been practicing medicine for almost five decades, Dr. Taub is regarded as one of the nation's leading experts on peritoneal mesothelioma, a rare cancer caused by asbestos exposure. For some jurors, it might seem like a no-brainer for Silver to send $500,000 in research funds to Dr. Taub's Columbia lab and for Silver to honor Dr. Taub, who, by all accounts, is a giant in his field.

Likewise, Silver's efforts to help Dr. Taub's family members do not appear particularly troubling. Based on public information, it appears that Silver directed $25,000 in state funds to Shalom Task Force, a Jewish nonprofit organization focused on promoting healthy marriages, of which Dr. Taub's wife sat on the board. As with the cancer research funds sent to Dr. Taub's lab, jurors are likely to consider the money that was sent to the Shalom Task Force to be money well spent.

Perhaps even less troubling is Silver's role in helping Dr. Taub's son land a job at OHEL Children's Home and Family Services, a Jewish organization dedicated to provided social services to families in need.

Moreover, Silver's defense team is likely to emphasize Silver's and Dr. Taub's strong personal bond as further justification for Silver's support of the Taub family. The defense team will argue that the personal and professional bond between these two developed as a result of seven decades of shared roots in the Lower East Side and both men's longstanding service to the Jewish community.

When viewed in this light, a key issue in the case will be the availability—or lack thereof—of an "insider" who can provide a first-hand account establishing that Silver used his official position to benefit Dr. Taub and his family, at least in part, because he was receiving, and wanted to continue to receive, patient referrals from Dr. Taub—patient referrals from which he expected to rake in millions after his firm's successful representation of these individuals.

One of the most noteworthy aspects of the case is the apparent absence of any cooperating witnesses who have pleaded guilty to participating in any of the offenses alleged against Silver. Based on the information that is public to date, the government appears to be relying exclusively on witnesses who have received non-prosecution agreements and immunity.

Silver's team will likely call upon witnesses from Weitz & Luxenberg to establish that no one at the firm suspected any wrongdoing or even knew much about Silver's relationship with Dr. Taub. Indeed, the government has already conceded in court documents that Silver did not share any details of his allegedly unlawful arrangement with members of the law firm.

Moreover, we can expect Weitz & Luxenberg attorneys to tell the jury that they understood that the referral-fee arrangement with Silver was completely above-board and that the firm successfully represented the individuals who were referred by Silver including negotiating substantial settlements of their asbestos claims. Indeed, the firm's managing partner has already gone on record to defend the firm's employment of Silver, likening Silver's position with the firm to a retired judge who is expected to bring prestige to the firm.

The biggest obstacle for Silver may be the testimony of Dr. Taub—a key government witness for whom Silver's lawyers have several lines of attack. Dr. Taub will testify under a non-prosecution and cooperation agreement with the government that provides that he will not be prosecuted for any of the conduct he testifies about. Such arrangements are normally reserved for witnesses with little or no criminal exposure.

Silver's defense team will likely point to the government's treatment of Dr. Taub as evidence that Dr. Taub is being "used" by the government and that the government is pursuing trumped up charges against Silver. It may be difficult for the jury to reconcile the idea that Dr. Taub's conduct did not warrant prosecution but Silver's conduct did—and an obvious compromise for the jury would be to let both men walk away from this affair which has forever impacted their personal and professional lives.

Silver's team will also seek to exploit an apparent inconsistency in the government's charging theories. Under the honest services theory, Dr. Taub is an active participant in the bribery and kickback arrangement with Silver; but under the extortion theory, Dr. Taub is a "victim" who felt that he had no choice but to bribe Silver so that he could obtain the research funds. A sophisticated New York jury may have a hard time placing Dr. Taub in either role, given Dr. Taub's esteemed position and reputation in the medical profession—and may have an even tougher time placing him in both roles as both bribe giver and "extorted" victim.

Most importantly, Silver's attorneys will make a strong case that the nature and timing of the transactions at issue favor Silver's position that no such quid-pro-quo arrangement existed. According to court documents, Dr. Taub sent Silver the first referral in November 2003—more than a year and a half before Silver directed the first research grant to Dr. Taub (July 2005). Furthermore, Dr. Taub continued to refer patients to Silver after 2010—that is, at least three years after Silver told Dr. Taub that the program under which Dr. Taub received the research grants had ended (sometime in 2007) and at least four years after Silver had directed the second and final research grant to Dr. Taub (November 2006).

Given this sequence of events, a jury might reasonably conclude that Silver did not believe that there was any connection between Dr. Taub's patient referrals and Silver's decision to award him research money. Indeed, the vast disparity between the purported benefit to Dr. Taub ($500,000 in research funds) and the purported benefit to Silver ($3.2 million in referral fees) would seem to support Silver's position that there was no connection.

Thus, the asbestos scheme is anything but a slam dunk. Much will depend on Dr. Taub's direct testimony about his allegedly unlawful dealings with Silver and information, if any, that might corroborate Dr. Taub's account. Even assuming that these pieces fall into place, the jury will decide if the disparate treatment of the two men is fair—and most importantly, whether Dr. Taub's testimony can be believed.

The "Real Estate Scheme"

The "real estate scheme" might be even more manageable for Silver's defense team.

In the real estate scheme, Silver is charged with using his authority over the real estate industry—including, among other things, his ability to influence real estate and tax abatement laws, rent control laws, and government subsidies—to benefit two real estate developers. As part of the unlawful arrangement, the two real estate developers allegedly agreed to retain the service of a particular real estate firm—which has since been identified as Goldberg & Iryami—a firm that specializes in real-estate tax reductions for properties in New York City. Goldberg & Iryami allegedly paid Silver $700,000 for the referrals. Jay Arthur Goldberg, Silver's former assembly counsel, is the lead partner at Goldberg & Iryami.

Since the details of Silver's official acts are unknown at this time, it is impossible to determine if there are any obvious temporal links between Silver's use of his official position and the referral fees that he collected.

Like the asbestos scheme, however, Silver's lawyers will be able to exploit the apparent absence of any credible witnesses who can confirm the existence of a quid-pro-quo arrangement between Silver and the real estate developers.

When viewed in this context, the indictment is a game changer for Silver. Up until the indictment, the fate of Silver's former assembly counsel Jay Arthur Goldberg was in question. By identifying Goldberg as an unnamed co-conspirator or "CC-1" in the original complaint, the government exerted pressure on Goldberg to cooperate in the investigation in the weeks leading up to the indictment. Normally, a person identified as an unnamed co-conspirator either pleads guilty and cooperates with the government or is added to a later indictment. Thus, the government's decision to drop the conspiracy count relating to the purported real estate scheme, including reference to Goldberg as CC-1, is remarkable.

This surprising turn of events suggests that Goldberg remained loyal to Silver and steadfast in their shared belief that they did nothing wrong. Going forward, the government may have a difficult time prosecuting the case if other witnesses follow Goldberg's example.

Presumably, this means that Goldberg may be available as a defense witness who can tell the jury that he did not believe he was facilitating an unlawful arrangement, that his firm performed valuable services for their real estate clients, and that the firm paid Silver for his role in helping the firm grow its practice—and based on their close personal bond that, like Dr. Taub, includes deep roots in the Lower East Side. Goldberg's successful law practice—which, according to press reports, includes hundreds of clients—could add validity to such testimony.

In addition, Silver's lawyers will be able to elicit testimony from the two real estate developers identified in the indictment who, according to court documents, will say that they did not learn that Silver was sharing the legal fees until very late in the game (that is, 2012 and 2014, respectively).

While we can expect the government to call the real estate lobbyist identified in court documents (who has entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the government that identifies him merely as a fact witness) to talk about Silver's late disclosure of the fee arrangement, it is unclear what, if anything, this person might be able to say about the existence of a quid-pro-quo arrangement. Moreover, any testimony by this individual that there was such an arrangement would presumably be contradicted by real estate developers who will say that they were outraged when they learned that Silver was splitting the fees.

Likewise, the government will likely call Goldberg's former law partner (who will provide testimony under an immunity order and has not pleaded guilty for his role in any of the charged offenses) to talk about concerns this person had about Silver's apparent failure to comply with his disclosure obligations and bar rules regarding disclosure of the fee arrangements. But again, it is unclear what, if anything, this person can say about any purported unlawful arrangement. Presumably, this person's testimony was not significant enough to implicate Goldberg in these offenses—and if this individual did not refrain from splitting profits with Goldberg and Silver, this could seriously undermine any testimony that something appeared to be amiss.

To be sure, the government likely has an arsenal of evidence against Silver, most of which is not public at this time—and the government may easily be able to meet these apparent challenges to the government's proof. But based on the information that is now publicly available, Silver's statement that he is going to "beat" this case is not outlandish. His lawyers are correct to advise him that this is a triable case. As we watch the case unfold, we should remind people that the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.