Senior U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney said Brugnara did not have sufficient evidence to support his claim the case against him violates a 2023 plea agreement he reached with the government in a separate case.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you have any documentation to support it, I will look at it, but what you have now does not support it,\u201d the Bill Clinton appointee said.<\/p>\n
In 2015, a jury convicted<\/a> Brugnara on two counts of wire fraud, one count of mail fraud, one count of making false declarations to the court, escape and contempt in a case stemming from him cheating<\/a> an art dealer of $11 million in fine art. He was sentenced<\/a> to seven years in prison and was released in 2020.<\/p>\n However, three years later, Brugnara was back in court over claims he violated the terms of his supervised release. He faced 14 violations, including bank fraud and making a false statement on a loan application.<\/p>\n Before sentencing, Brugnara reached an agreement with the government, admitting to five technical violations in exchange for the government dismissing six charges, including bank fraud and making a false statement on a loan application. He was later sentenced to nearly 15 months in jail for charges related to possessing a firearm and ammunition.<\/p>\n At Wednesday\u2019s hearing, Brugnara told the judge the government promised they would\u00a0not re-file charges related to the loan applications as a substantive charge and that he understood the agreement to dismiss the charges related to the loan applications in totality.<\/p>\n He also argued refiling the charges constitutes breach of contract, as he did not receive a benefit from pleading guilty, and he accused the government of \u201cconcealment, deception and fraud.\u201d<\/p>\n Brugnara mostly relied on his own recollection of past court hearings, noting he did not have access to transcripts while in pretrial detention.<\/p>\n However, Chesney pointed to transcripts of Brugnara\u2019s past hearings and footnotes in the government\u2019s sentencing memorandums stating the dismissals are \u201climited to the supervised release context only\u201d and do not prohibit the government from \u201cpotentially bringing separate criminal charges against the defendant for the same underlying conduct at some later date.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWhere it stands at the moment, I do not have anything that supports an agreement not to prosecute,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Brugnara further asked the judge to reconsider<\/a> his custody conditions<\/a>, offering the court an expanded bail package including $300,000 of loaned cash, an Andy Warhol painting, a title to a property in Daly City owned by Brugnara\u2019s girlfriend and 24\/7 ankle monitoring.<\/p>\n Chesney denied Brugnara\u2019s request, concluding there is no condition or combination of conditions that would reasonably assure his appearance in court.<\/p>\n Following the judge\u2019s ruling, Brugnara said he did not want to represent himself and is being forced to by the court, despite requesting<\/a> to go pro se a week ago over the judge\u2019s many warnings. When pressed on his statement, Brugnara affirmed that he unequivocally wanted to represent himself.<\/p>\n Chesney warned Brugnara about his inappropriate behavior in court, including his frequent interruptions and outbursts.<\/p>\n Brugnara then demanded Chesney recuse herself from his case, accusing her of prejudice for denying him bail.<\/p>\n \u201cIf you had any conscience at all, any integrity, you would give me bail; otherwise you are rigging it for them to win,\u201d he yelled.<\/p>\n Chesney said she would recuse herself from the case if she had grounds to do so.<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019re not an easy defendant to deal with; you\u2019re in a class by yourself; you talk more than all the other defendants together; you repeat arguments time and time again,\u201d she said. \u201cI don\u2019t have any interest in the result in your case, and I have no judgment on how it will come out.\u201d<\/p>\n The judge previously set a trial date of Oct. 19, with jury selection on Oct. 15.<\/p>\n Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.<\/p>\n Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing
\nFollow @mhattridge_<\/a>Categories \/
\nCriminal<\/a>,
\nRegional<\/a>Subscribe to our free newsletters<\/p>\n
\ntrials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world,
\nwhile the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood,
\nsports, Big Tech and the arts.<\/p>\n