◆ SpookStack

vy a matter of law he cannot be found guilty of both receiving a criminal gratuity and conflict of interest; (2) that he cannot be found guilty on the conflict of interest. count because Thompson was acquitted on that count; (3) that _ | the court's supplemental instruction on receipt of the money was erroneous; (4) that the court's treatment of co-conspirator hearsay statements under US v. Geaney, 417 | F2d 1116 (CA2 1969), was improper because it was more: harsh on defendants than in the Myers case; (5) that the government suppressed certain evidence concerning Criden's possession of a briefcase on January 8, 1980; (6) that there were Brady violations with respect to Weinberg's testimony at the Myers trial and other incidents relating to Myers}; (7) that there were Brady violations concerning Congressman Murtha's testimony about whether or not he expected toa be prosecuted; and (8) that the government improperly conceal- ed information about codefendant Criden's "plea deal". ~ The court has carefully reviewed all of the argu- _ ments advanced by defendant Murphy and concludes that. no one of them taken alone, nor all of them taken together, warrant either a new trial or a judgment of acquittal. Only a few comments about Murphy's arguments are necesssary. The legal theories surrounding -conflict of interest and receipt of a criminal gratuity were explored at length at the trial on the record. ' Simply put, they i . _ a et ae wos oer ~z, } i