## Facts

- William C. Brennan, a New York state judge, was charged in federal court with soliciting and accepting bribes connected to matters on his docket.
- Salvatore Polisi, a career criminal, was arrested on charges that were pending in Brennan’s court.
- After his arrest, Polisi agreed to cooperate with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and acted as an informant.
- At the FBI’s direction, Polisi participated in discussions with Anthony Bruno (an associate) and Brennan about exchanging money for information and assistance relating to Polisi’s case.
- At trial, the government presented evidence of meetings and communications supporting the bribery allegations, including recordings and authenticated telephone records.
- To help the jury follow testimony about a meeting at a restaurant where Brennan and Bruno discussed the bribe, the prosecution used a diagram of the restaurant’s interior.
- The diagram marked the table where Brennan and Bruno sat and nearby tables where undercover FBI agents sat; it also included a key indicating distance between tables.
- During closing argument, the prosecution used a chronological chart listing dates and events drawn from the government’s proof, including authenticated phone records and recordings.
- The jury found Brennan guilty.
- Brennan moved to set aside the verdict, arguing that the restaurant diagram and the chronology chart were inaccurate or misleading and improperly influenced the jury.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecution’s use of a restaurant diagram during trial was improper or so misleading that it required setting aside the guilty verdict.  
2. Whether the prosecution’s use of a chronological dates-and-events chart during final argument improperly added to the evidence or misled the jury, requiring the verdict to be set aside.  
3. Whether the challenged demonstrative materials, considered in context of the full trial record, resulted in unfair prejudice warranting post-verdict relief.

## Decision

- The court denied Brennan’s motion to set aside the verdict.
- The court treated the restaurant diagram as a visual aid used to help the jury follow testimony about locations and line-of-sight in the restaurant, not as independent proof.
- Any claimed inaccuracies in the diagram went to weight, not admissibility, and could be tested through cross-examination and argument.
- The court found the chronological chart used in summation to be a permissible argumentative aid because it was drawn from evidence introduced at trial (including authenticated phone records and recordings).
- The court concluded that the jury was capable of understanding that the demonstratives were tools to organize the evidence, and that their use did not render the trial unfair.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts may allow diagrams, maps, and similar demonstrative aids to assist the jury in understanding testimony, so long as they fairly relate to evidence introduced at trial and are not treated as standalone proof.
- In closing argument, counsel may use charts or timelines to summarize and organize admitted evidence, provided the presentation does not introduce new facts and the jury is not led to treat the chart itself as evidence.
- A verdict should not be set aside based on the use of demonstrative or summary aids absent a showing that the material was misleading in a way that likely affected the jury’s decision when viewed against the full record.

## Conclusion

United States v. Brennan holds that the government’s use of a restaurant diagram during testimony and a chronological chart during summation did not require setting aside the guilty verdict where the materials were tied to the trial proof, functioned as explanatory aids rather than independent evidence, and did not create unfair prejudice in the context of the full trial.


United States v. Brennan, 629 F. Supp. 283 (1986)