April 18, 2016

Cornell Alumna Found Not Guilty of Four Charges

Print More

On Mar. 30, Brenda Condon ’81 was found not guilty of three charges of grand theft and one charge of conspiracy to commit a crime by the Alameda County Superior Court in California.

As The Sun previously reported, four charges had been leveled against Condon by her former employer, FloraTech Landscape Management on Feb. 21, 2014, where she had worked for 17 years.

Court documents stated that Condon was accused of stealing money on three separate occasions from FloraTech accounts from Aug. 2013 to Mar. 2013 with the assistance of Ivan Orduno, a colleague at the same company.

A local newspaper reports that the fourth charge against Condon and Orduno accused them of planning a larger embezzlement scheme that involved Orduno moving the company’s assets under his own name over a two-year period.

A grand jury had acquitted both Condon and Orduno of all four charges after deciding that the accuser, Dean Schenone, did not provide sufficiently credible testimony and was shown evidence that he had suborned perjury, according to Michael Cardoza, Esq., Condon’s attorney.

During her time at Cornell, Condon was a member of the women’s ice hockey team who won two consecutive All-Time First Team All-Ivy League awards for the 1979-80 and 1980-81 seasons, as The Sun previously reported.

3 thoughts on “Cornell Alumna Found Not Guilty of Four Charges

  1. I agree completely- why was this ever covered in the first place? Why would the Sun assist in the defamation of an alumna from a vicious attack from her former employer? Why would the Sun print something provided by that employer and so damage an alumna? This is not AP news and the entire business was over 2500 miles west of Cornell. Unbelievable and very unfortunate that the Sun assisted in defamation. This reflects poorly on Cornell as a whole when the Sun operates at this level.

  2. Given that the Sun reported on the charges when they were initially filed, I would recommend that the Sun do a followup story exploring the reasons why the Alameda County District Attorney, Nancy O’Malley, chose to file charges and bring to a Grand Jury a case where the evidence appears to have been fabricated; furthermore, I would be interested to know whether charges will be filed against her accuser, Dean Schenone, for suborning perjury.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *