Former San Francisco real estate investor to represent himself in trial over accused pandemic-era fraud scheme

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Despite repeated warnings from a federal judge, former San Francisco real estate investor and convicted fraudster Luke Brugnara will represent himself at trial over accusations he submitted false loan applications for pandemic-era relief programs.“I am required to advise you, and I will, that you will do better with a trained lawyer representing you. It is generally unwise for anybody to represent themselves. You are not as familiar with the laws as an attorney; you are not as familiar with court procedure and court evidence. I really urge you not to represent yourself,” Senior U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney said.“If you are committed to it and think it is worth the risk, I think the law requires me to allow you to do it.”Brugnara, 62, was indicted in May 2024 on nine counts of wire fraud and three counts of money laundering. Prosecutors say Brugnara submitted fraudulent loan applications for federal relief programs in 2021 on behalf of his real estate investment business, Brugnara Corporation, and received over $400,000 in federal assistance.If convicted, Brugnara could face up to 20 years in prison for each count of wire fraud and 10 years for each count of money laundering.Chesney cautioned Brugnara about the potential consequences of representing himself, despite repeated assertions that he will be vindicated at trial.“Just so you understand, there is a risk, as confident as you are about the merits of the case, there is a risk of being convicted and going to prison. Do you understand that, even though you think it is remote?” the Bill Clinton appointee asked.Chesney questioned Brugnara about his legal background, asking him if he understood the federal rules of evidence and criminal procedure. Brugnara responded he had hands-on experience with the fundamentals of court procedures given his prior experience representing himself in court.Brugnara bragged to the judge about his perceived success representing himself in his 2015 trial over accusations he bilked an art dealer of $11 million in fine art.Throughout the more than two-week-long trial, Brugnara badgered witnesses, interrupted proceedings for verbal sparring matches with former Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup and federal prosecutors, and was held in contempt multiple times for attempting to sneak in evidence that had been declared inadmissible.Nevertheless, the jury convicted Brugnara on two counts of wire fraud, one count of mail fraud, one count of making false declarations to the court, escape and contempt, and he was later sentenced to seven years in prison.On appeal, his court-appointed attorney contended Alsup should not have allowed Brugnara’s trial to continue since it was clear he could not control his outrageous courtroom behavior and therefore was incapable of representing himself.However, the appeals court didn’t buy the argument and affirmed Brugnara’s sentence, writing “a defendant cannot be denied his right to self-representation just because he may defend himself poorly or inadequately.”Chesney expressed her concerns that, if convicted, Brugnara would again appeal the court’s decision to allow him to go pro se, warning Brugnara she would not tolerate “a trial like Judge Alsup’s.”“If you do not follow the rules of conduct, which apply in court as much as any other polite encounter, if you cannot comport yourself in a professional fashion, I will change the ruling and again find you will need to be represented by counsel,” Chesney said.Brugnara told the judge he disagreed with his prior attorney’s position that he shouldn’t have been allowed to represent himself at the 2015 trial, saying he was “put in a cage.”He conceded it was not wise to represent himself in this case but told Chesney it was his only option to get an earlier trial date, given his now-former attorney Matthew Dirkes of Illovsky Gates & Calia, as well as another attorney he contacted, would not be available to represent him successfully at trial for at least another couple of months.“I am sitting in torturous conditions. Only because of the conditions I am in, I must. I don’t know if I can last two weeks.”When asked by the judge if he was being forced to or threatened to give up his right to an attorney, Brugnara accused Assistant U.S. Attorney Aseem Padukone of orchestrating a conspiracy against him by filing a motion to revoke his bail in February, claiming the only way he will lose is because the judicial process is rigged against him.“If it is a fair fight, he loses. The only way he can win is if he handicaps me,” Brugnara said, adding later, “When I win this trial, this guy will never get any respect in the legal profession, and his boss will be fired by Trump.”After the court granted his motion to go pro se, the parties engaged in a lengthy back-and-forth about the logistics of preparing for a trial, given Brugnara remains in custody and won’t have the traditional access to a phone and laptop that defense lawyers have.Through frequent interruptions, Brugnara asked the court for a trial date in a week, claiming he would be ready to present his case to a jury in a matter of days due to his health conditions and “diminishing” cognitive ability.At one point, Brugnara pivoted to asking the judge for a bench trial, which the government declined. He then interjected that a later court date and separate jury selection would be “unduly prejudiced.”“As a pro se litigant, it would be impossible to give me a fair trial from jail. You are going to intentionally hamstring me to give this guy over here a leg up over me,” Brugnara said, pointing to Padukone.Chesney admonished Brugnara for his behavior, threatening to revoke her ruling but never following through.“If you keep this up, I will change my ruling within an hour. You have made the point that being in custody is detrimental to your health and you want the trial as soon as possible. The earliest we can do that is Oct. 19,” she said.The judge set a trial date of Oct. 19, with jury selection to begin on Oct. 15.Brugnara’s motions to dismiss the case and reconsider his bail revocation will be heard on Sept. 2.Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to a request for comment.In August 2024, Chesney directed Brugnara to be released from custody with the conditions that he would not commit any crimes or possess a firearm. However, a magistrate judge revoked his pretrial bond on Aug. 3 following a Jan. 21 altercation where Brugnara was arrested for possessing a firearm and threatening to shoot two people for trespassing at Thornton State Beach in Daly City, California.Brugnara never showed up for the February bond revocation hearing; however, prosecutors say he kept filing court documents demanding his bond conditions be reinstated. He was apprehended by U.S. marshals on July 30, fleeing from the officers before climbing on the roof of a nearby church, where he was caught, according to prosecutors.At multiple court appearances contesting the revocation of his bond, Brugnara has maintained the position that he was not aware of the February court date and is eager to proceed to trial.“I am zealously excited to go to trial,” he told U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros. “When this snafu happened, I wanted to get in to set the record straight. … I wanted to come in to vindicate myself on this PPP claim.”At two separate hearings over his pretrial detention, Brugnara demanded he be immediately allowed to move forward pro se and that Chesney set a court date in a matter of days. Both requests were denied.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads