Federal Criminal Defense Blog : Georgia Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Gillen Withers & Lake Law Firm : White Collar Crime, RICO, Trial : Atlanta, Savannah, GA

President Obama is expected to announce today his nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens. Solicitor General Kagan has been one of the presumptive leading choices to replace Justice Stevens ever since the Justice announced that he was stepping down. Ms. Kagan has drawn criticism from both the right and the left of the political spectrum, and the Senate confirmation process is expected to involve some controversy--as it invariably does.

Ms. Kagan's distinguished background is well known. She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1986, clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, worked at the Washington, D.C., law firm of Williams & Connolly, was a professor at the University of Chicago, worked as Associate Counsel and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy during the Clinton Administration before returning to Harvard as Dean of the Law School in 2001. In March 2009, President Obama named Ms. Kagan as Solicitor General for the United States.

Less well known is Solicitor General Kagan's views on criminal law. As Professor Douglas Berman of Ohio State University School of Law observes on his blog, Ms. Kagan lacks much of a record on criminal law issues which routinely come before the court.

There are indeed very few reported criminal cases which Ms. Kagan has been involved with during her career. Interestingly, many of the cases that do exist have gone against Ms. Kagan or against the government. While at Williams & Connolly, Ms. Kagan represented the defendant-appellant in the appeal of  U.S. v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646 (2d Cir. 1990) before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in which the Court held that the defendant, who was both a bank officer and attorney, possessed no reasonable expectation of privacy in bank documents which were not found in his office, since banking is a closely-regulated business and the documents were subject to routine inspection by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Much later, in Kucana v. Holder,130 S.Ct. 827 (2010), the Supreme Court held, contrary to the position of the Solicitor General, that motions to reopen immigration proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals were subject to judicial review. Next, in Johnson v. U.S., 130 S.Ct. 1265 (2010), the Court reversed the petitioner's conviction for possession of ammunition by a convicted felon under 18 United States Code Section 922(g)(1), holding that the petitioner's conviction for simple battery under Florida was not a "violent felony" which could be used to enhance the petitioner's sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act in 18 United States Code Section 924. In addition, as we have noted, the Court also ruled against the Administration in Bloate v. U.S., 130 S.Ct. 1345 (2010) in holding that time spent preparing pretrial motions is not automatically excludable from the Speedy Trial Act, 18 United States Code Section 3161 et seq. And most recently, in U.S. v. Stevens, --- S.Ct. ----, 2010 WL 1540082 (April 20, 2010), the Court found against Solicitor General Kagan in holding that 18 United States Code Section 4, which criminalized  the commercial creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty, was substantially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.

The lack of an extensive background in criminal issues is certainly no barrier to a potential distinguished and exceptional service as a Supreme Court justice. Indeed, it is hoped that the contrary results and setbacks which Solicitor General Kagan has experienced in her few forays into the field have encouraged a more nuanced and open minded view on criminal issues, or at least one that is not a mere rubber stamp of law enforcement and government actions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who notified President Barack Obama last week that he will be stepping down from the Court when its current term is over in June or July, has written nearly 400 opinions over his nearly 35 year tenure on the Court. Justice Stevens has weighed in on many occasions on criminal law issues over the past three and a half decades. Contrary to the label commonly applied to Justice Stevens as a "liberal," like all Supreme Court Justices, he has sided with the government in criminal cases more often than not. However, Justice Stevens has been the originator of many opinions which have upheld and furthered the rights of the individual in criminal cases, some of the more notable of which are outlined below.

On sentencing issues, Justice Stevens authored the opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the forerunner of the Court's landmark decisions in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 295 (2004) andUnited States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), in which the Court first famously held, in regard to New Jersey's "hate crimes" statute, that "[t]he Constitution requires that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum, other than the fact of a prior conviction, must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

Justice Stevens has been an ardent opponent of capital punishment throughout most of his term on the Court and has been the author of numerous opinions limiting the application of the death penalty. In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the Court held that execution of "mentally retarded" offenders constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and in Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988), ruled that juveniles under the age of 16 cannot possess the requisite culpability for imposition of the death penalty. And in Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980) the court mandated that, in capital cases, the jury must be instructed on, and permitted to consider, a verdict of guilt on a lesser included offense.

 In other cases, Justice Steven held in Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005), that a State could not impose the burden on a defendant claiming a racially discriminatory striking of a juror pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, to show that the striking was "more likely than not" the product of purposeful discrimination. He also held, in Hubbard v. U.S., 514 U.S. 695 (1995), that a federal court is not a department or agency of the United States for the purposes of making false statements in a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

 The Blog wishes Justice Stevens a happy retirement and looks forward to the appointment of his successor.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A large portion of government searches and seizures today involve the seizure and search of electronic media and information. The manner in which such searches and seizures of electronic media and information are conducted can become critically important afterwards if criminal proceedings are instituted. Well on Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs announced the publication of Electronic Crime Scene Investigation: An On-the-Scene Reference for First Responders by the National Institute of Justice, and may be viewed in its entirety on OJP's website. The publication is a guide for first responders responding to electronic crime scenes, and is a companion to an earlier publication, Electronic Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for First Responders, Second Edition.

The publication is available as a "flip book" which agents may consult on-scene during investigations and searches. It describes the types of electronic devices, guidelines for securing and evaluating a scene, guidelines for packaging and transporting digital evidence, and special considerations for electronic and digital crime evidence by type of crime. The guide instructs investigators, among other things, to:

*Document, photograph and secure digital evidence.

*Not to alter any electronic device.

*To exclude unauthorized persons from the area where the evidence is being collected.

*To interview witnesses regarding the use and users of any computers or devices.

*To document various facts relating to the electronic devices, as well as to video, photograph or sketch the scene.

*Not to alter devices or attempt to explore them on the scene, or even to press a key or click a mouse.

The OJP publication may prove of great assistance to defense practitioners in attempting to suppress the fruits of searches and seizures of electronic information and media. Counsel should carefully review the facts of any search and seizure of such evidence and interview all witnesses to any search and seizure to ascertain whether these procedures have been followed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Fulton County Daily Report's "The Snark" has illustrated, in a tounge-in-cheek manner, what has indisputably been the biggest change in the practice of law--including criminal law--over the decade just passed--technology. We have noted on this blog before that the technology boom of the last ten and more years has also presented inventive new avenues for crime and has created unusual challenges to the impartiality and sanctity of jury trials.

To be sure, e-mail had become widespread in the legal community by the late 1990s. However, as the comment notes, during the 2000s attorneys truly came into the full realization of the potential for e-mail as a more reliable and permanent way to document interactions between parties. The other edge of the sword is, of course, e-mail's evidentiary potential which can come back to haunt clients in various unpleasant ways. Few indeed are the defense attorneys who have not had at least one case where a client's computer was seized and imaged by the government, only to have e-mails alleged to be incriminating returned as highlights in government reciprocal discovery. While the positive side of e-mail is that it has made communication easy and easily preserved, the negative side of e-mail is... that it has made communication easy and easily preserved. E-mail is forever, and savvy 21st century lawyers would do well to counsel clients to be mindful not only of what they say, but of what they type and (increasingly in the decade ahead) of what they "text."

The comment also notes the changes in practice wrought by two other trends which began in the 90s: the continued spread of computer-assisted legal research and the growth of electronic filing. The need to page through compendious reporter volumes and indexes, or to spend hours at the local law library, has become an increasing rarity. Likewise, attorneys are increasingly relieved of the pressure to race to the courthouse before the clerk's office closes in order to file with the adoption of electronic case filing by more and more courts. The Blog notes that Case Management/Electronic Case Filing "CM/ECF," "PACER", a veritable blessing to both Federal courts and attorneys practicing in them, was first implemented by the Northern District of Ohio in 1996, and today is used by all Federal courts, a development which has heroically saved numerous acres of trees, millions in postage and reliance on the vagaries of the mails for reciept of notice of filings.

We close, fittingly, with a reminder of the challenges that the growth of technology will continue to pose for law and criminal enforcement. Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports that the Los Angeles firm of Gibson Hoffman & Pancione has alleged that a cyber-attack originating in the People's Republic of China. The firm has alleged that its software code has been stolen by malicious e-mails which appeared to be sent by other members of the firm, and which contained a "Trojan" code enabling the takeover of the firm's computers. The firm coincidentally represents the California-based company CYBERsitter in a $2.2 billion lawsuit against China, alleging that filtering programs used by China contain over 3,000 lines of code illegally taken from content filtering software produced by CYBERsitter. The FBI is investigating the attack.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As set forth in the official DOJ Blog yesterday, Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden issued three Memorandum to DOJ prosecutors no doubt intended to remedy some of the setbacks the Department suffered last year as a result of discovery violations. The subject of one of the Memos is “Guidance for Prosecutors Regarding Criminal Discovery.” The second Memo reference is “Issuance of Guidance and Summary of Actions Taken in Response to the Report of the Department of Justice Criminal Discovery and Case Management Working Group.” Finally, a separate Memo is address to all DOJ litigating components and all U.S. Attorneys.

Taking the "Memo to the U.S. Attorneys and DOJ Components" first, Odgen summarizes that he had convened a working group to address DOJ policies and practices regarding criminal discovery issues. Odgen references that he is sending to all DOJ trial attorneys and AUSAs a memo containing Guidance For Prosecutors Regarding Criminal Discovery that prosecutors should follow to ensure that discovery obligations are met in all future cases. Interestingly, Odgen directs that each U.S. Attorney’s Office develop a discovery policy consistent with the law and local rules and practices. That policy must be in place by March 31, 2010.

The “Guidance For Prosecutors Regarding Criminal Discovery” Memo sets out detailed steps prosecutors are to follow regarding discovery. The six page Memo first advises that the prosecutors must determine who is a member of the “Prosecution Team” for the purpose of determining what documents must be reviewed for disclosure.

The Guidance Memo then directs that the discovery review should cover the following: 1) the investigative agency’s files, 2) Confidential Informant/Witness/Source files, 3) Evidence and Information Gathered During the Investigation, 4) Documents or Evidence Gathered by Civil Attorneys and/or Regulatory Agencies in Parallel Civil Investigations, 5) Substantive Case Related Communications, 6) Potential Giglio Information Relating to Law Enforcement Witnesses, 7) Potential Giglio Information Relating to Non-Law Enforcement Witnesses and Fed.R.Evid. 806 Declarants, 8) Information Obtained in Witness Interviews, a) Witness Statement Variations and the Duty to Disclose, b) Trial Preparation Meetings With Witnesses and c) Agent Notes.

The Guidance Memo then directs that although prosecutors may delegate the process of review to others, they “should not delegate the disclosure determination itself.”

The Guidance Memo reminds prosecutors that discovery within DOJ is covered by the U.S. Attorney’s Manual Section 9-5.001, which is broader than what the law requires and that if a prosecutor chooses to follow that broader course, “defense counsel should be reminded that the prosecutor is electing to produce discovery beyond what is required . . .” The Memo then addresses the scope, timing and form of discovery disclosures, but cautions that, “[p]rosecutors should never describe the discovery being provided as ‘open file.’”

Finally, the Guidance Memo counsels that the prosecutor should make a good record regarding the disclosures.

The “Issuance of Guidance and Summary of Actions Taken in Response to the Report of the Department of Justice Criminal Discovery and Case Management Working Group” Memo reminds prosecutors of the words of Justice Sutherland that it is the prosecutor’s duty is “that justice shall be done.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). This Memo informs prosecutors of the establishment of the Guidance Memo set out above and that each U.S. Attorney’s Office shall have a “discovery coordinator.” In addition, DOJ has:
 

• Created an online directory of resources pertaining to discovery issues that will be available to all prosecutors at their desktop;
• Produced a Handbook on Discovery and Case Management similar to the Grand Jury Manual so that prosecutors will have a one-stop resource that addresses various topics relating to discovery obligations;
• Implemented a training curriculum and a mandatory training program for paralegals and law enforcement agents;
• Revitalized the Computer Forensics Working Group to address the problem of properly cataloguing electronically stored information recovered as part of federal investigations;
• Created a pilot case management project to fully explore the available case management software and possible new practices to better catalogue law enforcement investigative files and to ensure that all the information is transmitted in the most useful way to federal prosecutors.
 

No doubt much will be written in coming days and weeks regarding these Memoranda and what I’ve set out here is strictly an overview. Every criminal practitioner in federal court should read, study and be familiar with these Memoranda.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Once again demonstrating the massive potential for crime created by our digital age, 28 year-old Albert Gonzalez pled guilty to two counts of conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to payment card networks last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey according to a DOJ press release. Gonzalez was charged with hacking into the computer networks of major financial and retail organizations and stealing data on tens of millions of credit cards and debit cards, in one of the largest data breaches in U.S. history. He gained unauthorized access to the payment card networks of New Jersey-based, Heartland Payment Systems; Texas-based convenience store chain 7-Eleven; and Hannaford Brothers Co. Inc., a Maine-based supermarket chain. He was indicted in New Jersey in August 2009. In September 2009, Gonzalez also pled guilty in the U.S. Distric Court for the District of Massachusetts to 19 counts of conspiracy, computer fraud, wire fraud, access device fraud and aggravated identity theft for hacking into retailers including TJX Companies, BJ’s Wholesale Club, OfficeMax, Boston Market, Barnes & Noble and Sports Authority. In the same month, he pled guilty to a count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud for hacking into the system of Dave and Buster's, a restaurant chain, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Gonzalez had several servers, or "hacking platforms," and would give access to the servers to other hackers. Gonzalez and others would use the platforms to store malicious software, or "malware," in launching attacks on their victims. Gonzalez's plea agreement states that it was forseeable that Gonzalez and his co-conspirators would have used the malware to steal tens of millions of credit and debit card numbers, affecting more than 250 financial institutions.

Gonzalez tested malware by running multiple anti-virus programs in an attempt to ascertain if the programs detected the malware. According to information in the plea agreement, it was foreseeable to Gonzalez that his co-conspirators would use malware to Gonzalez was indicted in New Jersey in August 2009 for this criminal conduct. His plea agreement provides for a sentence of imprisonment between 17 and 25 years. He is scheduled to be sentenced in the Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey cases in March.

The charges against Gonzalez are staggering in their scope. They also demonstrate that would-be cybercriminals should consider their online aliases carefully, as they may resurface in a Federal indictment, as in the case of Albert Gonzalez a/k/a "j4guar17" a/k/a "soupnazi," etc.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Although it may be considered small change when compared with the fraud of fellow Floridian Scott Rothstein, according to an FBI press release, Gary Ernest Williams, former Chief Financial Officer for Marian Gardens Tree Farm (MGTF) in Groveland, Florida, was sentenced to eight years imprisonment on Monday in the U.S. District Corut for the Middle District of Florida. Williams was charged with embezzling approximately 10.5 million from MGTF since 2000 through falsified checks, use of a credit card in the company's name and making large cash withdrawals which he told bank officials were to be used to pay “employee bonuses.” Willams spent the money on lavish homes, luxury cars, jewelry, drugs, and vacations by private jet. He also failed to failed to pay federal income taxes in the amount of $3,675,000 on the illegally obtained funds.

Williams entered a guilty plea in July. The District Court ordered Williams to pay more than 14 million in restitution to MGFT and to forfeit homes in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and the Bahamas.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In response to allegations uncomfortably similar to those against former New York celebrity lawyer and arch Ponzi-schemer Marc Dreier, Fort Lauderdale attorney Scott Rothstein, head of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A., appeared in response to a criminal information in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Tuesday. The information charges Rothstein with one count of Racketeering Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); one count of Money Laundering Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); one count of Mail and Wire Fraud Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349; and two counts of Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, as well as criminal forfeiture, U.S. v. Rothstein, 0:09-cr-60331-JIC.

According to the criminal information, available here, from about 2005 through November 2009, Rothstein, and other “known and unknown” unnamed co-conspirators, allegedly unlawfully obtained approximately $1.2 billion from investors through a Ponzi scheme (outdoing even Dreier’s scheme). The Government alleges that Rothstein used false statements, documents and computer records to induce investors to loan money to alleged borrowers based upon fraudulent and fictitious promissory notes and bridge loans. Rothstein allegedly falsely informed investors that his law firm, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A.’s, clients requested short-term financing for undisclosed business deals and that the clients were willing to pay high rates of return for loans negotiated by Rothstein.

Rothstein also allegedly told investors that they could purchase at a discount confidential settlement agreements in sexual harassment and whistleblower cases in amounts ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. Rothstein allegedly falsely represented that the settlement agreements would be repaid to the investors at face value over time. Rothstein allegedly represented to investors that the settlements were highly confidential in order to protect the reputations of the companies and executives involved; that the plaintiffs preferred to settle the claims rather than purse them in a public forum; that Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A., would disburse the investors’ funds to the plaintiffs; that the firm would make payments to the investors pursuant to the payment schedules in the alleged settlement agreements; that the funds were maintained in designated trust accounts for the investors in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Florida Bar and were verified by independent sources, as well as numerous other alleged false statements regarding the settlement agreements, investment funds and the firm.

To effect the fraud, Rothstein allegedly established numerous trust accounts in Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A.’s name; falsified statements from financial institutions and manufactured online banking information allegedly showing investors’ monies; created false and fictitious settlement agreements and other documents. Among the alleged false and fictitious documents was a court order in a case, purportedly signed by a Federal District Judge, which falsely alleged that Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A.’s clients had prevailed in a lawsuit and were owed $23 million, when in fact the firm had settled the case without the clients’ knowledge and had obligated them to pay $500,000 to the defendant.

The information also alleges that Rothstein allegedly falsely told clients that, in order to recover funds, they had to post bonds to be held in Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A.’s trust account. Over several years, clients wired approximately $57 million to a trust account controlled by Rothstein. Rothstein allegedly created another false Federal court order to conceal the scheme, providing that the funds were to be returned to the clients by a later date.

Rothstein used the funds acquired through the alleged scheme to fund the operations of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A., and to expand the firm. The firm grew to employ approximately 70 attorneys. Rothstein is alleged to have laundered the funds from the scheme through corporations, contributions and large bonuses and gifts to employees. The information alleges that Rothstein used the funds to make contributions to Federal, State and local political candidates in a manner designed to conceal the source of the funds and to circumvent Federal and State limits on campaign contributions; for charitable donations; to purchase controlling interests in restaurants in South Florida; and to hire members of local law enforcement to provide security for Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A., and for Rothstein personally.

The enormous wealth amassed by Rothstein through the alleged scheme is apparent in the Governement’s forfeiture allegations, which seek forfeiture not only of a sum of $1.2 billion, but also of 24 properties in Fort Lauderdale, Lauderdale by the Sea, Boca Raton, Hollywood and Plantation, Florida; New York City and Narragansett, Rhode Island, including Rothstein’s 10% ownership in the Miami Beach mansion of late fashion mogul Gianni Versace, “Casa Casuarina.” Forfeiture is also sought of numerous business interests, bank accounts and jewelry, as well as 24 vessels and vehicles purchased by Rothstein, including a 55 foot yacht.

The Government also lists millions in political and charitable contributions by Rothstein which it seeks forfeiture of, including contributions to the Republican Party of Florida; Florida Governor Charlie Crist; Democratic Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, who is running for governor; and two hospitals.

As reported in the Miami Herald here, and here, Rothstein started Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A., in 2002 as an obscure attorney practicing employment law. Over the next six years, his net worth grew from about $160,000 to tens of millions. Rothstein used flashy wealth and connections in the Broward County social and business communities to lure wealthy persons to invest in his schemes. He befriended the rich and famous, including NFL Hall of Famer Dan Marino

George G. Levin, a wealthy Fort Lauderdale resident and hedge fund manager, gave $656 million to Rothstein to invest in settlements purportedly worth $1.1 billion. Levin helped Rothstein market investments in employment and sexual harassment lawsuits to investors, although he is not alleged to have been complicit in Rothstein’s crimes. Another of Rothstein’s clients, car-dealership mogul Ed Morse, claims that Rothstein defrauded him of $57 million, arising from the settlement of a contract dispute with an interior decorator.

Rothstein would allegedly give large bonuses to employees of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A. on the condition that they make campaign contributions to political candidates who Rothstein would specify. The Government has stated that the recipients of the political contributions have returned the contributions. The Florida Democratic Party has returned $200,000 and the Florida Republican Party has given back $150,000. After Crist won the Governor’s race in 2006, he appointed Rothstein to a panel which nominates Broward County judicial candidates. The Florida Democratic Party has called for an investigation of Crist. Rothstein also allegedly paid gratuities to local law enforcement officers to avoid scrutiny.

Rothstein’s scheme began to unravel over Halloween weekend, when investors began calling the firm for overdue payments and discovered the fraud. Rothstein fled to Morocco in October, taking $400,000 to $500,000 in cash with him and wiring $16 million to Casablanca. Rothstein reportedly sent e-mails to members of his firm that he was contemplating suicide, but he returned to the U.S. on a private jet in early November. He met with Federal authorities and provided details regarding his Ponzi scheme. FBI and IRS agents raided Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A.’s law offices, and seized Rothstein’s real and personal property. Rothstein agreed to waive indictment, an indication that he is cooperating with the Government, although Rothstein’s counsel has denied that he has any deal with the Government.

The Government’s information does not name Rothstein’s alleged co-conspirators, however news reports suggest members of Rothstein's inner circle at the law firm, and officers at Toronto Dominion Bank, where the investor trust accounts were held.

Rothstein’s alleged Ponzi scheme has been called the largest in the history of South Florida by Federal officials. The Florida Bar has disbarred Rothstein for stealing from the firm’s trust account. Rothstein, Levin and TD Bank are also being sued by a group of investors for more than $100 million.

Rothstein appeared in court on Tuesday in casual attire with a confident demeanor and pled not guilty to the information. U.S. Magistrate Judge Robin Rosenbaum ordered Rothstein jailed pending trial based on Rothstein’s flight to Morocco. Rothstein is represented by attorney Marc Nurik, oddly of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A. He faces up to 100 imprisonment if convicted.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last Wednesday, the Government, through Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Blanco, filed a brief Motion to Dismiss Third Superseding Indictment with Prejudice seeking to dismiss its indictment against Miami, Florida, attorney Benedict P. Kuehne, and also Colombian attorney Oscar Saldarriaga Ochoa, in the criminal action of U.S. v. Velez, 1:05-cr-20770-MGC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Government’s motion stated that it was based upon the “totality of the circumstances,” including the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the District Court’s dismissal of the Government’s charge of conspiracy to launder money against Mr. Kuehne. The Government stated that it believe that dismissal was in the interest of justice. On the same day, U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke entered an order dismissing the Third Superseding Indictment.

The dismissal marked the end of a long ordeal for Kuehne, who was indicted over two years ago for alleged money laundering conspiracy, money laundering concealment conspiracy, concealment money laundering and wire fraud conspiracy. According to the Government’s indictment, Fabio Ochoa Vasquez was one of the leaders of the Medellin Cartel, one of the largest cocaine trafficking and money laundering organizations in the world. In 2001, Ochoa was extradited from Colombia to the U.S. to face charges of conspiring to smuggle approximately 30 tons of powder cocaine into the U.S. per month between 1997 and 1999. Ochoa hired distinguished attorney Roy Black, of the Miami law firm of Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A., and other attorneys to represent him, and the defense in turn retained Mr. Kuehne, of the Law Offices of Benedict P. Kuehne, P.A., to investigate the funds which Ochoa would use to pay his legal team. Kuehne drafted various opinion letters for the offense. The Government alleged that Kuehne was paid for his investigation and opinions by various wire transfers with monies which were the proceeds of specified unlawful activity—the distribution and sale of illegal drugs, including monies from the Colombian “Black Market Peso Exchange” and drug proceeds supplied by undercover U.S. agents.

Kuehne, through his attorney, Jane Moscowitz of Moscowitz & Moscowitz, P.A., filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in July, which may be viewed here, relying on the fact that one of the federal money laundering statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 1957, contains an express exemption for “any transaction necessary to preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the Constitution.” 18 U.S.C. § 1957(f)(1).The motion began with a quote from Banking Crimes: Fraud Money Laundering and Embezzlement, by John K. Villa: "There is an inestimable difference... between expecting a defendant to be able to find an attorney willing to risk his fee, and expecting him to find an attorney willing to risk his personal liberty." Kuehne argued that Congress enacted the exemption in § 1957(f)(1) out of a concern that the threat of prosecution of criminal defense attorneys for accepting fees would have a “chilling effect” on attorneys’ willingness to accept clients, and therefore impose an unacceptable burden on the exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The defense argued that the monies paid fell squarely within § 1957(f)(1)’s exemption and that Count One of the indictment should be dismissed. The District Court agreed and dismissed Count One, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in United States v. Velez, No. 09-10199, 2009 WL 3416116 (11th Cir., October 26, 2009).

As reported by the Miami Herald, Kuehne addressed reporters on the steps of the courthouse, stating that he always believed “things would turn out well in the end.” Prior to the allegations against him, he had been a prominent member of the legal community, serving on the Florida Bar board of governors, as a past president of the Dade County Bar Association and as a member of Vice President Al Gore’s legal team in the 2000 Florida presidential election dispute. Kuehne expressed his appreciation to the Department of Justice for the dismissal of the matter. Cynthia Hujar Orr, President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which filed amicus briefs in Kuehne’s case, called the Government’s prosecution of Kuehne “disgraceful.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The trial of Bear Stearns hedge fund managers Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin got underway last week. As reported by attorney Jacob Zamansky in Forbes and the New York Daily News, the parties gave opening statements on Thursday. Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Sinclair argued that Bear Stearns financial officer Matthew Tannin allegedly told investors on 11 occasions that he was putting more of his own money into Bear Stearns’ troubled High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Fund and High-Grade Structured Credit Enhanced Leveraged Fund. Tannin allegedly told investors that it would be “silly” to redeem their investments. Sinclair also told the jury that Cioffi failed to disclose to investors that he had transferred $2 million of his own money to another Bear Stearns fund. The prosecution cited alleged incriminating e-mails between Cioffi and Tannin in which the defendants allegedly acknowledged that the subprime mortgage market was “toast” and that they should “close the fund.” Sinclair argued that Cioffi’s and Tannin’s actions were allegedly to save their bonuses and reputations. He spoke to the jury for about 45 minutes.
 

In contrast, Cioffi’s attorney, Dane Butswinkas, delivered a two hour opening statement using charts and exhibits to show the complexity of Bear Stearns’ management structure, hedge funds and the operation of the collateralized debt obligation (CDO) market. Butswinkas argued that the defendants were the victims of market forces beyond their control and that the defendants did their best to predict the future performance of the market and the funds. Tannin’s counsel, Susan Brune, also spent approximately two hours explaining to the jury about hedge funds, CDOs and market risk. Brune attributed the failure of the funds on a “run on the bank” and argued that the funds’ investors were well aware of the risks. Brune characterized the prosecution’s theory as “I lost my money, therefore there has to be a fraud.” The defense argued that the e-mails were taken out of context, and that worrying about markets is not a crime.
 

Nearly 300 investors kept their investments in the hedge funds, which lost $1.4 billion in July of 2007. The two hedge funds had experienced positive growth until the preceding quarter, however an internal Bear Stearns report showed that securitized subprime mortgages were losing value fast.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The trial of former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin begins today in Brooklyn, as reported by Bloomberg. A jury will be selected today. 

Cioffi and Tannin are charged with allegedly causing losses of $1.4 billion to investors by misleading investors regarding the health of two Bear Stearns hedge funds, the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Master Fund Ltd. ("Enhanced Fund"). and the Bear Stearns High- Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund Ltd. ("Master Fund"). Cioffi was a hedge fund manager and Tannin was an attorney who served as chief operating officer. They are charged with alleged conspiracy, securities fraud and wire fraud. Cioffi is also charged with alleged insider trading.

Cioffi's and Tannin's attorneys have argued that the collapse of Bear Stearns was actually the result of the failure of two other Bear Stearns hedge funds a year prior to the failure of the Enhanced Fund and the Master Fund.

U.S. Attorney Benton Campbell, a former member of the Justice Department’s Enron Corp. Task Force, and Assistant U.S. Attorney James McGovern, are leading the prosecution of Cioffi and Tannin. The prosecution alleges that Cioffi and Tannin were promoting the funds to investors while knowing that the health of the funds was in serious risk. The government has listed 38 witnesses and 532 exhibits which it intends to present at trial, however, the centerpiece of the government's evidence is expected to be Cioffi's and Tannin's own words in e-mails.Cioffi allegedly sent one e-mail on March 15, 2007, with the subject-line "Fear," stating that he was fearful of what the markets were going to do. In another e-mail, Tannin allegedly stated that if AAA bonds were downgraded, there would be no way for the funds to make money. Google released additional private e-mails to the government last week. Prosecutors allege that e-mails show Cioffi and Tannin allegedly boasting of how they were luring investors to invest more money in the funds at the same time they knew that the funds were in trouble. Witnesses for the government are expected to include Bear Stearns employees and investors in the hedge funds.

Cioffi is defended by attorney Brendan Sullivan, who won reversal of the charges against Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, as well as Margaret Keeley and Dane Butswinkas, all of Williams & Connolly LLP. Tannin is being represented by Susan Brune and Nina Beattie of Brune & Richard LLP. Commentators have observed that the e-mails by Cioffi and Tannin can be read in "many" ways.

A year following the failure of the funds, Bear Stearns itself failed and was purchased by JP Morgan Chase & Co. The failure of Bear Stearns was accompanied by failures of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., and AIG. Losses from U.S. banks and mortgage companies in the financial collapse total at least $396 billion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by Chris Herring over at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, the trial of former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers Matthew Tannin and Ralph Cioffi is scheduled to commence next Monday. And now the government has obtained Tannin's e-mails from his private Google account. Tannin had closed the Google account on the advice of his counsel. Prosecutors suspected that Tannin was hiding something. Google released the e-mails a few days ago. U.S. District Judge Frederic Block for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has ruled that since the e-mails have been released, the government cannot explore whether Tannin was trying to hide anything from investors in his personal e-mails, stating that it would confuse the jury and citing the fact that the government already intends to present 38 witnesses and over 500 exhibits in its case against the defendants.

E-mails between Tannin and Cioffi allegedly expressing concern over the health of the hedge funds have already been released to the public. The newly-produced e-mails are expected to reflect similar alleged concerns by the defendants.

As reported by CNN, Cioffi and Tannin are the only two persons to face criminal charges resulting from the worst financial crisis in U.S. history since the Great Depression. The defendants are alleged to have misled investors in two of Bear Stearns' hedge funds to believe that the condition of the funds was better than it in fact was. The hedge funds collapsed in the Spring of 2008, resulting in over $1 billion in losses to investors.

Legal observers have characterized Cioffi's and Tannin's prosecution as a "test case" and have cited the government's need to make an example to discourage similar conduct in the financial sector. Although Cioffi and Tannin may have offered the government what it believed to be its most clear cut case, commentators have noted it may be difficult to prove that Cioffi and Tannin possessed an alleged intent to defraud investors rather than merely being misguided or stupid, given the fact that very few foresaw the subprime mortgage crisis and the collapse of the market.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we check back with Sir Robert Allen Standford, the most noteworthy development is perhaps that the Bellagio, a Las Vegas casino and luxury resort, filed suit against Stanford last week in a Clark County Nevada district court for an alleged $258,480 in unpaid gambling debts.The lawsuit alleges that Stanford signed for 14 markers between January 15 and 22 of this year.

Oddly enough, Stanford is allegedly a self-professed Southern Baptist who reportedly infused the boardroom culture in his companies with religion, surrounded himself with individuals he met through church and used church contacts to find customers. Furthermore, Stanford's adoptive home, Antigua and Barbuda, is one of the leading host nations for the multi-billion dollar international online gambling  industry. Stanford, however, reportedly refused to deal with persons involved in gambling in his business dealings. While Stanford's companies based in Antigua have ceased operations, its online gambling sector has continued to thrive.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, which has frozen Stanford's assets, is investigating the Bellagio markers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As is well known, Bear Stearns, one of the largest investment banks in the world, was sold to JP Morgan Chase and effectively ceased to exist in March of 2008, after two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in collateralized debt obligations—mainly subprime home loans—and once worth approximately $1.6 billion, lost nearly all of their value. The collapse of Bear Stearns was the harbinger for a succession of massive failures of financial institutions, including Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and AIG, triggering the current global recession.

As reported by New York Magazine, Reuters and the Daily Telegraph, two managers of the hedge funds, Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin were charged in June in the Eastern District of New York with several counts of wire and securities fraud for allegedly misleading investors regarding the status of the funds in the Spring of 2007. Cioffi, a hedge fund manager, and Tannin, the Chief Operating Officer of Bear Stearns Asset Management (BSAM), have pled not guilty. The collapse in value of the funds cost investors approximately $1.4 billion. When traders wanted to sell some of the funds’ subprime mortgages, no one wanted to buy them.

The trial of Cioffi and Tannin is set to begin in October. The evidence against Cioffi and Tannin consists largely of e-mails between them and investors describing the funds as “an awesome opportunity,” despite allegedly knowing that the funds had problems. Bear Stearns investors are expected to testify at the trial. Both men have consistently maintained their innocence. They face a potential 20 years in prison if convicted.

Cioffi is also charged with alleged insider trading for withdrawing $2 million of his own money from the funds. The government alleges that he engaged in hundreds of transactions involving the funds without the necessary approval by the fund’s directors and despite being warned about conflicts of interest. All trades between Bear Stearns, a securities firm, and BSAM, an asset management firm, were supposed to be vetted by an independent committee. In the Fall of 2006, Bear Stearns ordered a moratorium on such internal trades by Cioffi. Prosecutors sought to introduce evidence of Cioffi’s alleged insider trading in order to demonstrate how Cioffi allegedly operated.

British bank Barclays, a shareholder of one of the funds, also filed suit against Cioffi and Tannin for alleged fraud, however, the suit has been withdrawn.

The prosecution of Cioffi and Tannin makes conspicuously noticeable the fact that no senior executives from Bear, Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc., have been charged with any wrongdoing in the fallout from the financial crisis.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, inc., will pay $2.3 billion to the Federal government and 49 States to settle allegations that it violated federal regulations in promoting several drugs, as reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The settlement is the largest in U.S. history to date in a healthcare fraud case. 

Georgia will receive $21.7 million as part of the settlement. A spokesperson for the Georgia Attorney General's office told the media that Georgia's portion of the settlement funds would be earmarked for Georgia's Medicaid program.

The U.S. Department of Justice had accused the New York-based pharmaceutical company and its subsidiaries of conducting marketing campaigns to promote drugs including Geodon, Lyrica, Zyvox, and no longer marketed Bextra, for uses not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The government also alleged that Pfizer gave kickbacks such as cash, travel and entertainment to members of the healthcare industry in order to persuade them to prescribe these drugs and others, including Lipitor, Zyrtec and Viagra. The only State which did not join in the suit was South Carolina.

Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., a subsidiary of Pfizer, has pled guilty to a felony charge of violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and will pay a fine of $1.3 billion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Associated Press, closing arguments have started in the terrorism trial of Atlanta area native and former Georgia Tech student Ehsanul Islam Sadequee. Sadequee is representing himself and will present his own closing argument.

Sadequee called only two witnesses in his defense before resting his case, including his older sister, Sharanika Sonali Sadequee. Sadequee told the Court that he did not want to testify in his defense. His sister testified that he was quiet, inquisitive and nonviolent and had traveled to Bangladesh to marry his long-time love. The government contends that the trip was actually a cover for Sadequee's alleged plan to attend a terrorist training camp. Sharanika Sadequee testified that her brother has been prohibited from discussing certain subjects in the trial, including his arrest in Bangladesh, which she called a kidnapping, and an attack on Sadequee by another inmate while he has been in custody. Sadequee's mother prayed in the courtroom throughout the proceedings.

U.S. District Court Judge William S. Duffey, Jr., scolded Sadequee for attempting to introduce his wedding photographs into evidence at the last minute. The Judge denied Sadequee's motion for acquittal and ruled that there was sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury on all four counts. The jury will begin deliberations later today.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We did not weigh in yesterday, but the biggest federal criminal defense news was clearly the conviction of U.S. Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana in his criminal trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, as reported by the New Orleans Times-Picayune. The jury of eight women and four men returned a verdict of guilty against Jefferson on 11 of 16 counts, including 2 counts of conspiracy to solicit bribes to a public official in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), 2 counts of soliciting bribes, 3 counts of honest services fraud, 3 counts of money laundering, and one count of racketeer influenced and corrupt organization (RICO) violations. As a testament to Jefferson's defense, the jury did not find Jefferson guilty on three of the honest services charges as well as a charge for obstruction of justice and a count for violation of the FCPA.

Jefferson, who is 62, faced a maximum of 235 years in prison if convicted on all counts. He has been allowed to remain released pending his sentencing on October 30. A forfeiture hearing will be held regarding his assets.

Jefferson was the first African-American congressman from Louisiana since Reconstruction.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, 23, nicknamed "Shifa," which means "Cure," is representing himself in his trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on four counts of allegedly conspiring to provide material support to terrorism. As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Associated Press, Sadequee began his 14 minute opening statement with a prayer. He told the jury that he had talked about jihadist "fantasies" but that it was empty talk and that there was no plan to carry out acts of terrorism. Sadequee denied conspiring with known terrorists. He told the jurors that he only discussed jihad in online chat rooms."If everything is a question mark, can there be a plan?" he asked the jurors.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert McBurney argued to the jury that Sadequee only needed to orchestrate the crime, not carry out any terrorism. The government claimed that Sadequee began visiting online sites frequented by Islamic militants and leaving messages regarding his intent to join the Taliban shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when he was only 15.

The government presented testimony by Omer Kamal, an Atlanta accountant, former Georgia tech student and friend of Sadequee's. Kamal testified that he, Sadequee and Syed Haris Ahmed, who was convicted in June, watched training videos by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, and practiced jihad attack techniques with paintball guns in North Georgia. He stated that he backed out of the group when they started planning to visit the Middle East to link up with terrorist groups. Kamal cooperated with the FBI and agreed to testify against Sadequee after becoming concerned that he was under surveillance. He said that the group discussed attacking targets including the White House, the U.S. Capitol, Guantanamo Bay Prison and Abu Ghraib. Kamal said he had slipped a note under his friends' doors when he decided to leave the group. Sadequee then went with Ahmed to Toronto, Canada, to meet with terrorists there. Sadequee spent over an hour cross-examining Kamal yesterday.

Mr. McBurney argued that Sadequee sent videos of the alleged targets to a terrorist suspect in Britain disguising the videos with titles such as "jimmy's 13th birthday party" and "volleyball contest." He claimed that Sadequee subsequently traveled to Bangladesh in order to get married, but also to link up with terrorist groups. Sadequee was arrested in Bangladesh in 2006. Mr. McBurney said that Sadequee communicated with other terror suspects including Ahmed and Mirsad Bektasevic, a Balkan-born Swede who was convicted in 2007 of planning to blow up a target in Europe to force the pullout of foreign troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ahmed, who is awaiting sentencing, has agreed to testify against Sadequee, and will take the stand today.

Sadequee has worn a gray tunic with a beard and long hair during the proceedings. Sadequee's mother, Shirin, sat in the audience during the proceedings and wept and prayed for her son. If convicted Sadequee faces up to 60 years in prison.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We closely followed the trial of Syed Haris Ahmed, who was convicted for providing material support to terrorism in early June--all of our posts may be found here. The trial of Ahmed's alleged co-conspirator, Ehsanul Islam Sadequee on terrorism charges began yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Sadequee has apparently taken a page from Ahmed, who delivered a highly unusual closing argument in his own case, and has opted to represent himself and will present his own opening statements, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Sadequee has opted for a jury trial unlike his alleged co-conspirator, who was tried by the same judge, the Honorable William S. Duffey. The parties completed jury selection yesterday.

Attorney Don Samuel is serving as stand-by counsel for Sadequee. Mr. Samuel told the Court that Sadequee did not understand what it meant to represent himself. Judge Duffey replied that he had informed Sadequee regarding what it meant to represent himself numerous times.

Sadequee, who is nicknamed “Shifa,” was born in Virginia in 1986, and is of Bangladeshi descent. He and Ahmed are most infamously accused of videotaping landmarks in Washington, D.C., in April of 2005, for purposes of terrorism, including the United States Capitol and the headquarters building of the World Bank. It is also alleged that Sadequee and Ahmed engaged in paramilitary training in North Georgia; met with a circle of terrorists in Toronto, Canada, in February of 2005; and sent the video of the alleged targets to Younis Tsouli, a terrorist in the United Kingdom.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As noted at White Collar Criminal Prof Blog and The Justice Fellowship, the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held a hearing last week on "Over-criminalization of Conduct and Over-federalization of Criminal Law." Organizations which addressed the Subcommittee on issues of over-criminalization and over-federalization included the American Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society.

The hearing considered the lack of distinction between federal criminal and civil offenses, as well as over-federalization of criminal law where federal criminal laws have been enacted to cover offenses already subject to state criminal laws, usually providing for harsher penalties. The Subcommittee noted the existence of approximately 4,500 federal criminal laws, with approximately 50 new criminal laws enacted by Congress each year.

The hearing should be welcome news to most federal criminal defense practitioners. Reform in these areas is badly needed. In some cases, certain prosecutions of alleged federal crimes would be more equitably, and less expensively, handled through the imposition of civil fines and penalties. Furthermore, in many cases, State prosecutorial entities are as capable as Federal entities to prosecute offenders in areas where State and Federal criminal law overlaps. The Blog looks forward to the proposals for reform which result from the hearing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Judge T.S. Ellis, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia read instructions to the jury yesterday which lasted over 2 & 1/2 hours, and the jury retired for its deliberations in the case against former U.S. Representative William Jefferson. The jury deliberated for about four hours and will re-convene to continue deliberations this morning.

The jury weighing the evidence in the six week long trial of Jefferson on 16 criminal counts, including racketeering, honest services fraud and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, consists of two white males, six white females, two black males and two black females. Jefferson's case is the first time the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has been applied to a public official. The Court sent three alternate jurors home yesterday, instructing them to remain "pristine" with regard to their exposure to information regarding the case.Jefferson's lead attorney, Robert Trout, told reporters that Jefferson intends to be present at Court each morning when the jury arrives.

Closing arguments were heard earlier in the week, with numerous media outlets and journalists from Louisiana in attendance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The trial of former Representative William Jefferson, which has gone on for six weeks in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, will come to an end today. As reported by Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog and UPI, both sides gave their closing arguments yesterday. Judge T.S. Ellis will give jury instructions and likely send the case to the jury this morning.

The case is best known for the infamous discovery of $90,000 in cash stuffed in boxes for burgers and pie crusts in the freezer at Jefferson's home by federal agents. Jefferson was indicted in 2007 on 16 counts of bribery, racketeering, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The government charged Jefferson with using his position to promote business ventures in West Africa in exchange for cash payments for his family.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca Bellows argued during the govenrment's closing that Jefferson allegedly schemed to give at least $100,000 in cash (the "freezer money") to the Vice President of Nigeria, Atiku Abubakar, as a bribe in exchange for granting rights to a telecommunications company with ties to Jefferson's family. The government also played video and audio tapes of meetings between Jefferson and Virginia businesswoman Lori Mody, who was working for the government as an informant. In one video, Jefferson supposedly informed Mody that the cash would be "doled out" to "make sure the hook is in there," and on another tape Jefferson allegedly referred to the bribe as "a goodwill present."

The defense maintained during trial that Jefferson's conduct was stupid or unethical, but not criminal. Defense attorney Robert Trout told the jury during his closing arguments that the government wanted to make Jefferson's actions a crime when it was really a "gray area." He told the jury that Jefferson only agreed to give the money to Abubaker in order to please Ms. Mody.

Prior to closing arguments, Judge Ellis refused to dismiss an obstruction of justice count against Jefferson. Jefferson faces a lengthy prison sentence if convicted.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and WSB Radio, Anthony Ray, a DeKalb County resident, solicited money from investors by promising them large returns from real estate investments by his company, Key Funding Group. He would frequent local churches to locate victims, making presentations to the congregations. Ray lulled his victims by giving them back portions of their investment and falsely referring to them as returns. Ray hosted his victims at several locations around the Atlanta area, including his condominium in Buckhead as well as a $680,000 home in Decatur, Georgia, which belonged to one of his victims and in which he ran his office. In all, Ray stole at least $5 million from over 30 investors.

Ray stole $160,000 from his own parents. He started Key Funding Group with his father, Calvin Ray, 70, and took out large loans using his father’s identity and his parents’ home as collateral. His parents subsequently turned him in. Ray’s twin brother, Antonio, told reporters that Ray took everything his parents had, and that their father, decided that they had to prosecute.

Ray previously served five years in prison for stealing his brother's identity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sir Robert Stanford has filed a Motion for Relief from Oppressive Jail Conditions. Stanford is currently being held at the Joe Corley Detention Facility in Conroe, Texas. The Motion alleges that temperatures have reached 100 degrees and that the cell in which Stanford is being housed in a cell with 8 to 10 other men and with no windows or air conditioning. Stanford requests transfer to the Federal Detention Center in downtown Houston. The Motion also asserts, as a ground for transfer, the fact that the government has provided discovery in electronic form and the Joe Corley Facility does not permit the use of electronic devices. Stanford's counsel, Dick DeGuerin, claims that he has tried to work these issues out with the U.S. Marshals Service and the staff of the Joe Corley Detention Facility, but to no avail.

A status conference has been set in Stanford's case for September 10, which the defendants moved to continue from August 17. Meanwhile, Stanford's appeal of the District Court's denial of pretrial release is listed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, U.S. v. Stanford, Case No. 09-20444.

While in no way meaning to detract from the charges against Stanford and his codenfendants, which are extremely serious in magnitude, this Blog notes that arch-Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff and celebrity attorney-turned-crook Marc Dreier were both granted pretrial release and were confined to their residences with electronic monitoring devices. Given that the government has frozen all of Stanford's assets effectively starving his defense of funding, and that the defense has alleged deliberate misrepresentations by the prosecution in arguing for pretrial detention, pretrial release appears to be appropriate in Stanford's case. We will await the hopefully speedy resolution of the bail issue by the Fifth Circuit.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The 44 public officials and other persons arrested in the massive sweep on Thursday by the FBI, the result of efforts by the convicted son of a rabbi, include:

Daniel Van Pelt, State Assemblyman;

Peter Cammarano III, Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey;

Dennis Elwell, Mayor of Secaucus, New Jersey;

Anthony Suarez, Mayor of Ridgefield, New Jersey;

Leona Beldini, Deputy Mayor of Jersey City;

Mariano Vega, President of the Jersey City Council, Commissioner with the Jersey City Housing Authority and Director of Parks, Engineering and Planning for Hudson County, New Jersey;

L. Harvey Smith, President of the Jersey City Council and former State Assemblyman;

Lou Manzo former State Assemblyman;

Edward Cheatam, Jersey City Housing Authority Commissioner and Hudson County Affirmative Action officer;

Michael Schaffer an employee of the North Hudson Sewerage Authority and former Hoboken Councilman;

John Guarini, city taxi inspector and former 13th District Congressional candidate

Denis Jaslow, former 32nd District State Senate candidate;

Guy Catrillo, Michael J. Manzo and LaVern Webb Washington, former Jersey City City Council candidates;

Richard Greene, former aide to L. Harvey Smith;

Joseph Cardwell, Jack Shaw, political operatives;

Also Moshe Altman, Charles Amon, Joseph Castagna, Schmulik Cohen, Levi Deutsch, Yeshayahu Ehrental, Mordchai Fish, Yolie Gertner, David S. Goldhirsh, Shimon Haber, Eliahu Ben Haim, Itzak Friedlander, Saul Kassin, Maher A. Khalil, Ron Manzo, Edmond Nahum, Abraham Pollack, Levi Izhak Rosenbaum, Lori Serrano, Jack Shaw, Vincent Tabbachino, Jeffrey Williamson, Lavel Schwartz, Binyomin Spira, Naftoly Weber and Arye Weiss.

As reported by various sources here, here and here, the arrests were part of a 10-year, two-track investigation by the FBI, code named “Bid Rig” which uncovered three criminal schemes: bribery of public officials; an international money laundering ring operating between Deal, New Jersey, and Israel; and trafficking in illegal kidneys and Gucci bags. The schemes were uncovered by a confidential informant had been charged with bank fraud in 2006 and agreed to work with the FBI. Five rabbis from New Jersey and New York were among those arrested. Hundreds of federal agents raided the suspects’ homes in New Jersey and New York. There were so many arrestees that they had to be brought to FBI headquarters in Newark, New Jersey, by bus. One religious leader arrived in a Mercedes-Benz. Bail was set as high as $3 million for some of the suspects.

FBI Special Agent Ed Kahrer stated to reporters that New Jersey has one of the worst, if not the worst, public corruption problems in the nation, and that corruption has become “engrained” in New Jersey’s “political cult.” Acting U.S. Attorney Ralph J. Marra, Jr., announced that the conspiracy, which was headed by rabbis cloaked their criminal activity in a “facade of rectitute.”

Investigators stated that they have hundreds of hundreds of hours of video and audio recordings containing evidence of money laundering and bribery.

The Public Corruption and Bribery Cases

A criminal complaint filed against Hoboken Mayor Peter Cammarano, 32, alleges that Cammarano accepted a bribe in exchange for giving priority to an FBI informant posing as a real estate developer wanting to develop property in Hoboken. Hoboken’s waterfront contains prime real estate across from Manhattan. The informant is believed to have been Solomon Dwek, who was arrested in 2007 and charged with bank fraud for bouncing a $25 million check. Dwek is the son of Rabbi Isaac Dwek of the Deal Synagogue in Deal, New Jersey, which was raided by the FBI on Thursday. Dwek told the conspirators that he was in bankruptcy and was interested in hiding his assets.

The informant met Cammarano while he was running for Mayor and told Cammarano that he would give him $10,000. The complaint alleges that Cammarano promised the informant that he would sponsor the plans and treat the informant like a “friend.” Michael Schaffer, a North Hudson Utilities Authority commissioner and former Hoboken Councilman, allegedly acted as a middle man for the bribe.

Cammarano has only been in office for three weeks. He allegedly told the informant that those who oppose him get “ground into powder.” When the discussion turned to a possible runoff election with Cammarano’s challenger Dawn Zimmer, who lost the election by only 161 votes, Cammarano allegedly told the informant “I could be indicted and still get 85 to 95 percent of the vote.” Cammarano’s attorney, Joseph Hayden, has made a statement that Cammarano intends to fight the charges.

Cammarano is charged with allegedly accepting a total of $25,000 in cash bribes. Dennis Elwell, 64, Mayor of Secaucus is charged with allegedly accepting a $10,000 cash bribe and Anthony Suarez, 42, Mayor of Ridgefield, is also charged with allegedly accepting a $10,000 cash payment—for his legal defense fund.

L. Harvey Smith, Jersey City Council President, and several other current and former Jersey City public officials also are accused of allegedly accepting money to help the fake developer gain permits and approvals. Deputy Mayor of Jersey City Leona Beldini is charged with conspiracy to commit extortion for allegedly accepting $20,000 in illegal campaign contributions.

FBI agents raided the home and office of New Jersey Department of Community Affairs Commissioner and former State Senator Joe Doria as part of the investigation. Doria resigned on Thursday afternoon. Officials have not stated whether he will face charges.

The Money Laundering and Black Market Organ and Designer Goods Cases

Five rabbis from Deal and Brooklyn were charged with alleged money laundering and sale of fake designer bags. The rabbis were approached by Dwek and dealt with him, despite the fact that it was well known that he had been charged by the government. Dwek’s dealings with the rabbis eventually uncovered the public corruption case when a Jersey City building inspector accepted a $20,000 bribe. Rabbi Saul Kassin of Deal is charged with allegedly laundering more than $200,000. Mordchai Fish, a rabbi at Congregation Sheves Achim, and his brother, Lavel Schwartz, laundered nearly $600,000 for Dwek, giving him cash and taking a 15% cut.

Agents raided “cash houses” run by associates of the rabbis, including a charity called Bnoth Jerusalem and a beeper store.

Levy Rosenbaum, a Brooklyn resident, was charged in a criminal complaint with allegedly conspiring to broker a sale of a human kidney for transplant for $160,000. The complaint further alleged that Rosenbaum had been selling kidneys from vulnerable persons in Israel for 10 years, which he would purchase for $10,000 and sell in the U.S. for $160,000.

The public corruption scandals will undoubtedly figure into the current U.S. Senate contest between Senator Jon Corzine and former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, who claims to have obtained 130 convictions of elected and appointed officials on corruption charges.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Wednesday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces and Asset Forfeiture Program's National Leadership Conference. Mr. Holder spoke regarding the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) Program, an inter-agency program established in 1982 to conduct comprehensive, multi-level attacks on major drug trafficking and money laundering organizations. OCDETF combines the resources and expertise of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard in cooperation with the Department of Justice Criminal Division, Tax Division and its U.S. Attorney’s Offices, as well as state and local law enforcement. Its mission is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle drug trafficking and money laundering organizations.

Mr. Holder praised the track record of OCDETF and the Asset Forfeiture Program. He mentioned that, since the inception of the Attorney General's Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT) List in 2002, OCDETF has dismantled or disrupted over 1,2000 CPOT and CPOT-linked organizations.

The Attorney General discussed the innovation of OCDETF in establishing the OCDETF Fusion Center to gather intelligence on drug trafficking and money laundering organizations from human and electronic sources in its "Compass" database. Mr. Holder also stated that the International Organized Crime Intelligence and Operations Center -- or "IOC-2"--has recently entered into a partnership with the OCDETF Fusion Center to add data to the Compass database in order to "broaden our capability to attack organized crime in all its forms."

Mr. Holder also remarked on the success of permanent OCDETF Strike Forces in Boston, New York, Atlanta, Tampa, San Juan, Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, with an additional Strike Force planned for El Paso. He mentioned that OCDETF has begun placing Document and Media Exploitation (DOMEX) Teams in the Atlanta and Houston Strike Forces, which permit agents to rapidly capture and exploit evidence and permit prosecutors to quickly develop trial exhibits.

The Attorney General cited the national security threat of the Mexican drug cartels. Mr. Holder furthermore discussed the success of the Asset Forfeiture Program and noted that, since 1984, more than $13 billion in net federal forfeiture proceeds have been deposited into the Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund and more than $4.5 billion has been equitably shared with more than 8,000 state and local law enforcement agencies nationwide, thereby supplementing their constrained resources without further taxing the public. The Attorney General stated that, in fiscal year 2008 alone, approximately $500 million was paid to more 39,000 victims.

Mr. Holder also praised Operation Honor Student, which involved a task force led by the Rhode Island U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section of the Criminal Division, and the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations, and resulted in the forfeiture of $2.7 million from the accounts of GeneScience, one of the largest biopharmaceutical companies in China which had been involved in the illegal distribution of Human Growth Hormone into the United States. He noted that the task force employed a new statutory vehicle-- 18 U.S.C. § 981(k) --enacted as part of the Patriot Act and used for the first time, which permitted the Government to seize the funds, physically located in China, from the corresponding accounts of Chinese banks in New York. Task force agents estimate that at the time of the investigation, GeneScience manufactured approximately 90% of the hGH being illegally sold and distributed in the United States.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New legislation typically means new criminal laws, and the White House's and Congress' recent ‘‘American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,’’ H.R. 2454, better known as the "Waxman-Markey Bill" or "Cap and Trade Bill," is certainly no exception. The bill is over 1,000 pages long and, for those with copious amounts of time, may be viewed in its entirety here. H.R. 2454 was introduced on May 15, 2009, and narrowly passed in the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, by a vote of 219 to 212. The Senate is expected to vote on the bill sometime this Fall.

FCDB seeks to keep readers and practitioners alike abreast of changes in criminal law posed by such new legislation. Somewhat surprisingly, a search of H.R. 2454 reveals just one criminal provision, Section 1041, page 1045, in Part IV of the bill entitled "Carbon Market Assurance," which provides:

§ 1041. Fraud and false statements in connection with regulated allowances
        Whoever in connection with a transaction involving a regulated allowance (as defined in section 401(a) of the Federal Power Act, as added by section 341 of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009), knowingly—
        (1) makes or uses a materially false or misleading statement, writing, representation, scheme,
or device; or
        (2) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device any material fact, shall be fined not more than $5,000,000 (or $25,000,000 in the case of an organization) or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
        (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘1041. Fraud and false statements in connection with regulated allowances.’’

A "regulated allowance" is defined in Section 401 of H.R. 2454 as "any emission allowance, compensatory allowance, offset credit, or Federal renewable electricity credit established or issued under the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009." The proposed changes would be to 18 U.S.C. § 1041, which currently prohibits fraud in connection with a major disaster or emergency benefits.

The Waxman-Markey/Cap and Trade legislation amends the Federal Power Act to require corporations which emit pollutants such as carbon to hold the allowances, which represent the right to emit a certain amount of pollutant. It also would create “regulated allowance derivatives,” which are financial instruments derived from the allowances. The derivative instruments would be purchased and traded by corporations, financial institutions and funds. The proposed change to 18 U.S.C. § 1041 represents a typical fraud/false statement criminal provision for new legislation, albeit with stiff penalties.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we have noted, the prosecution of wealthy, international financier Sir Robert Allen Stanford has been characterized from the outset by vigorous disputes over bond for Stanford. The prosecution has argued that Stanford poses a risk of flight given his international connections and the potential that he possesses resources hidden overseas. The defense, led by attorney Dick DeGuerin, has hit back, arguing that Stanford possesses considerable ties to the U.S. and voluntarily surrendered himself, and further charging that the prosecution has made numerous knowing misrepresentations in arguing against bond for Stanford.

The U.S. magistrate judge had ordered Stanford to be released on $500,000 bond, however the District Court Judge reversed the order and ordered Stanford to remain in custody. Last Friday, Stanford's attorneys appealed the Court's bond determination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The government is certainly pulling out all the stops in putting pressure on Stanford, who is charged in an alleged Ponzi scheme which allegedly lost investors $7 billion. Not only has it managed to deny him bond, but it has frozen his assets and those of his companies. Yesterday, the defense was granted permission by the Court to file a motion regarding attorney's fees ex parte and under seal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported in the Macon Telegraph, Dwight "Malachi" York, former leader of the United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors who was indicted and convicted on over 100 counts of child molestation in April 2004 and setenced to 135 years, has filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia to vacate his sentence. York, who has been a minister and a musician, is best know as the founder of "Nuwaubianism," an unorthodox religious sect established in the 1970s. In 1993, York moved the Nuwaubians from upstate New York to a compound in Putnam County, Georgia, near Eatonton. York was arrested for sexually molesting dozens of children in 2002. The charges against York were truly astounding and hideous in their magnitude--author Bill Osinsky, in the fact sheet for his book Ungodly, reveals that state prosecutors literally had to cut back the number of counts listed in the indictment from well over 1,000 to slightly more than 200 because "they feared that a jury simply would not believe the magnitude of York's evil."

York has now filed a motion alleging that Federal Bureau of Investigation agents threatened witnesses to give perjured testimony against him, as well as alleging that the prosecution used unauthenticated tapes of York having sex with minors to taint the jury. The motion attached affidavits from witnesses in York's trial, including one by a witness who alleges that FBI agents took him from his family and transported him to a home in Milledgeville and pointed guns at him until he agreed to give information against York. York is currently incarcerated at the supermax prison in Florence, Colorado.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by Law.com, the sentencing of celebrity attorney and Ponzi schemer Marc Dreier is scheduled for next Monday, July 13. Dreier was arrested last December for defrauding investors and clients of more than $740 million through a series of schemes. A full history of the Dreier saga is set forth here. He pled guilty on May 11 to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud, one count of money laundering, one count of securities fraud and five counts of wire fraud and has remained under house arrest in his luxury apartment in Manhattan.

Dreier's attorney, Gerald L. Shargel, filed a sentencing memorandum on Tuesday requesting a sentence for Dreier of between 10 years and 12 years and 7 months. Shargal asserted that Dreier has already started to be punished through his public disgrace, the loss of his law firm and possession, and "the shame and suffering that his actions have brought upon his family."

However, the prosecution, headed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan R. Streeter, has filed a sentencing memorandum aiming for a higher sentence for Dreier--145 years in prison, or, in the alternative, "a term of years that would both assure that Dreier will remain in prison for life and emphatically promote general deterrence."

The government's recommended sentence for Dreier is a mere 5 years less than the 150 year sentence imposed two weeks ago on the largest Ponzi scheme fraudster in history, Bernard Madoff (as massive as Dreier's crimes were, Madoff defrauded investors of exponentially more money). Dreier is currently 59. The proposed 145 years aside (and 145 years before his sentencing date--June 13, 1864--Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee had just concluded one of the bloodiest battles in American history at Cold Harbor, Virginia) any sentence imposed by the Court is all but guaranteed to ensure that Dreier spends the rest of his life behind bars. Although Drier's fraud, as massive as it is, is only a small fraction of the damage caused by Madoff, the record for a white collar criminal sentence is actually 845 years, imposed on Shalom Weiss in 2000 for a $450 million mortgage and insurance scheme against Florida pensioners (to be eligible for release today, even counting "good time," Weiss would have had to have started his sentence in 1290--the year Edward I of England passed the statute of Quia Emptores, which reformed the feudal land system). You can enjoy Money Central's list of the ten longest white-collar criminal sentences here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The prosecution in the case of wealthy international financier Sir Robert Allen Stanford wants Stanford behind bars even before he has his day in court, arguing that his contacts abroad create a great risk that he will flee the country. Stanford, through his attorney, Dick DeGuerin, has countered that he possesses ties to the U.S. and voluntarily surrendered to authorities following the issuance of the warrant for his arrest. The dispute over potential pretrial release/bail for Stanford in this case has been particularly heated, as shown by a chronology:

June 19: At Stanford's initial appearance, U.S. Magistrate Judge Hannah Lauck of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia determines that Stanford is a flight risk and orders him detained. Stanford is transported to Houston.

June 25: At Stanford's arraignment in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, U.S. Magistrate Judge Frances H. Stacy sets Stanford's bond at $500,000 but stays bond pending the prosecution's appeal of the bond.

June 29: U.S. District Judge David Hittner holds hearing on the revocation of Magistrate Judge Stacy's release order. Judge Hittner reverses release order and orders Stanford detained.

July 7: Stanford files a 48-page Motion to Reconsider and/or Reopen Detention Order, with numerous exhibits. Mr. DeGuerian alleges in the Motion that the prosecution made numerous misrepresentations of material facts in arguing for the revocation of Stanford's bond. Stanford claims that the government made the following alleged intentional misrepresentations to the Court in order to cause Stanford's release to be revoked:

1. That Stanford's expired Antiguan diplomatic passport was allegedly "missing;"

2. That Stanford allegedly siphoned approximately $100 million from a bank account with Societe Generale Swiss in late 2008;

3. That Stanford's primary residence is allegedly not the U.S. and that he does not have strong ties to Texas;

4. That $1 billion is allegedly "missing" from Stanford's companies;

5. That Stanford has engaged in allegedly suspicious travel while he has been under investigation and that he allegedly has contacts outside the U.S. who would gladly help him flee; and

6. That Stanford allegedly bribed Antiguan officials.

The Stanford case is a good example of how allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and misrepresentations can play into the very inception of a case or into stricly procedural matters, without having to await formal challenges to charges on the merits. In any event, Stanford's attorneys have certainly presented a forceful argument for his release on bond, and we look forward to monitoring the Court's resolution of his Motion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     Except for the United States Coast Guard, every branch of the United States military possesses personnel and bases within the State of Georgia: Fort Benning, Fort Gillem, Fort Gordon, Fort McPherson, Fort Stewart, Hunter Army Airfield, and Lawson Army Airfield for the United States Army; the Atlanta Naval Air Station and King's Bay Naval Submarine Base for the United States Navy; the Albany Marine Corps Logistics Base for the United States Marine Corps; and Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Moody Air Force Base and Robins Air Force Base for the United States Air Force. Although the vast majority of servicemen and women serve their country dutifully, honorably and without any mark whatsoever on their record, occasionally military personnel do become involved in criminal activity, and the United States armed services have a well established justice system to deal with such activity.

     Firstly, each armed services branch has its own military police force, the Military Police Corps for the Army, the Master-at-Arms for the Navy, the Provost Marshal’s Office for the Marines and the Air Force Security Forces (there also are separate United States Department of Defense police forces for each branch, which are concerned with security). Each service further has its own department for criminal investigations: the Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID), the Navy’s and Marine Corps’ Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI). The Army CID 3rd MP Group and the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory are based at Fort Gillem, and Air Force OSI maintains units at all Georgia Air Force bases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

            Defense counsel with foreign clients will not be pleased with the latest offering from the United States Supreme Court and its take on international law. José Ernesto Medellín, a Mexican national, was convicted and sentenced in a Texas state court for the capital murder of two girls. Fortunately, Mexico brought an action in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague against the United States on behalf of Medellin’s and 51 other Mexican nationals in Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U. S.), 2004 I. C. J. 12 (Judgment of Mar. 31) (Avena). The ICJ held that, based on violations of the Vienna Convention, the nationals were entitled to review and reconsideration of their convictions and sentences in state courts in the United States, regardless of whether the defendants had waived their rights to raise challenges under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna Convention or Convention) for failure to comply with generally-applicable state rules governing challenges to criminal convictions. President George W. Bush even showed his support for the international tribunal by issuing a Memorandum to the Attorney General in which he directed that the United States discharge its international obligations by having State courts give effect to Avena. Medellin did not raise any Vienna Convention claims prior to his conviction. After the state court dismissed Medellin’s petition for writ of habeas corpus to raise his Vienna Convention claims, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Medellin v. Texas.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link