• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.DANIEL BAYLY andROBERT S. FURST§§§§§§§ Cr. No. H-03-363 (Werlein, J.)DEFENDANT ROBERT S. FURST’SMOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FOR PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCTHEARING REQUESTED
Case 4:03-cr-00363 Document 1109 Filed in TXSD on 01/14/10 Page 1 of 49
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. SUMMARY OF MOTION................................................................................................1II. BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................3A. The First Trial........................................................................................................31. The Barge Transaction...............................................................................32. The ETF’s Stated Theory of the Case........................................................43. The Defense Made Repeated Requests for theProduction of 
 Brady
Material, Including Some of theSpecific
 Brady
Evidence Which Was Withheld........................................84. The ETF Made Sparse
 Brady
Disclosures in the FirstTrial............................................................................................................9a. The April 22, 2004 Brady Letter..................................................10b. The June 1, 2004 Brady Letter.....................................................10c. The July 30, 2004 Brady Letter...................................................115. The ETF’s Representations to this Court.................................................12B. Hundreds of Pages of 
 Brady
Material Were Produced YearsAfter Furst was Tried, Sentenced, and Imprisoned..............................................131. In September 2007, the Government Produced TwoPartial Composite 302s for Andrew Fastow WhichRevealed Exculpatory Information Withheld from theDefense at Trial........................................................................................142. In December 2007, the Government Produced 302s forKatherine Zrike and Others Which RevealedExculpatory Information Withheld from the Defense atTrial..........................................................................................................153. The ETF’s
 Brady
Misconduct in the
Skilling
CaseResulted in the Compelled Production of theHandwritten Notes Underlying the Fastow Composite302s..........................................................................................................16
Case 4:03-cr-00363 Document 1109 Filed in TXSD on 01/14/10 Page 2 of 49
 
 III. EXAMPLES OF EGREGIOUS AND MATERIAL
 BRADY 
 VIOLATIONS.................................................................................................................17A. The ETF Withheld Exculpatory Evidence That Nullified ItsCase......................................................................................................................181. ETF (Mis)Representation #1: Did Fastow Actually
Guarantee
that Enron Would Repurchase the Barges, orSimply Obligate Enron to Use its “Best Efforts” to HelpMerrill Lynch Remarket the Barges?.......................................................182. ETF (Mis)Representation #2: Contrary to theAllegations in the Indictment, Fastow Expressly DeniedPromising to Repurchase the Barge Investment......................................223. ETF (Mis)Representation #3: To Prove an OralGuarantee Where None Existed, the ETF SponsoredTestimony from Fastow’s Subordinates Who the ETFKnew Were Misinformed about the Nature of Enron’sObligations to Merrill Lynch...................................................................234. ETF (Mis)Representation #4: Fastow Expressly DeniedObligating Enron to Repurchase the Barge Investment...........................265. ETF (Mis)Representation #5: The ETF WithheldExculpatory Statements by Katherine Zrike WhichProved the Barge Transaction was a “Best Efforts” Deal........................28a. Katherine Zrike’s exculpatory 302 was withheldfrom the defense...........................................................................28b. Katherine Zrike’s exculpatory SEC testimonywas withheld from the defense....................................................29IV. LEGAL AUTHORITY....................................................................................................35A. The Government is Constitutionally, Ethically, and as a Matterof Department Policy Bound to Disclose Exculpatory Evidenceto the Defense......................................................................................................36B. This and Other Courts Have Dismissed Indictments for
 Brady
Violations Substantially Less Severe Than Those in This Case..........................38C. The Egregious Pattern of Withholding and Manipulation of Exculpatory Evidence Mandates Dismissal of the Indictment............................41V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................42
 
Case 4:03-cr-00363 Document 1109 Filed in TXSD on 01/14/10 Page 3 of 49
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...