Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Motion for Relief-Latin Kings1

Motion for Relief-Latin Kings1

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10|Likes:
Published by Jordan Green
Motion for Government to Submit Proffer of Co-conspirator's Statements Six Weeks Prior to Trial
Motion for Government to Submit Proffer of Co-conspirator's Statements Six Weeks Prior to Trial

More info:

Published by: Jordan Green on Jul 29, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/13/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA1:11-cr-402-1UNITED STATES OF AMERICA))v.))JORGE PETER CORNELL)MOTION FOR GOVERNMENT TOSUBMIT PROFFER ONADMISSIBILITY OFCO-CONSPIRATOR’S STATEMENTSSIX WEEKS PRIOR TO TRIAL NOW COME DEFENDANTS JORGE CORNELL, RUSSELL KILFOIL, WESLEYWILLIAMS, SAMUEL VELASQUEZ, AND RANDOLPH KILFOIL, by and through their 
1
attorneys, and respectfully moves this Court to require to submit pre-trial proffers of statementsof alleged co-conspirators in order to permit the Court to determine whether or not statements or any alleged co-conspirators are admissible against any defendant or in the alternative bar theGovernment from presenting any such statements for which it did not make a pre-trial proffer.In support of this motion defendants state the following:1.It appears, upon information and belief, that the Government intends to introducestatements of alleged co-conspirators against the defendants at trial, pursuant to Rule801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.2.Such co-conspirators’ statements are inadmissible hearsay under Rules 801(c) and802 of the Federal Rules of Evidence unless the government can demonstrate that:a.A conspiracy existed; and b.the party against whom it was offered was a member; andc.the statement was made in furtherance of the conspiracy.Counsel for each of the listed Defendants have advised undersigned counsel for Jorge
1
Cornell that their clients join in this motion.
Case 1'11-cr-0040-.AB Document 168 9iled 07>7>1 Pa e 1 of
 
Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E);
 Bourjaily v. United States
, 483 U.S. 171 (1987).3.Although the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit does not require a formal pre-trial hearing to determine the admissibility of statements,
United States v. Hines
, 717 F. 2d1481, 1488 (4 Cir. 1983), because of the complexity of this case a more formal procedure would
th
facilitate the ends of justice and help provide a more orderly trial of the matter. For example, inaddition to the 14 co-defendants alleged by the Government to be co-conspirators, there are atleast a dozen or more individuals the Government’s discovery indicates were affiliated with theLatin Kings at one time or another and who have been interviewed by the government. There arealso numerous confidential informants who the government has not identified but who appear tohave been associated with the Latin Kings at one time or another and who have been interviewed by the Government. Many of these interviews contain alleged statements by co-defendants or other members of the Latin Kings. There are also hundreds of audio recordings containingstatements allegedly made by the charged defendants or by others who the Government maycontend were co-conspirators.4.The issues affecting admissibility are further complicated by the fact that theGovernment discovery discloses that there are numerous persons who were associated with theLatin Kings who left the Latin Kings or were expelled from the Latin Kings at various points intime. This raises an additional issue over whether these persons’ later statements could be infurtherance of the alleged conspiracy.
2
5.The issues of admissibility are further complicated because the GovernmentThere are many examples of this disclosed in the Government discovery. One example
2
is illustrated with respect to Defendant Yates in the Attachment filed to the Motion to Dismiss being filed co2
Case 1'11-cr-0040-.AB Document 168 9iled 07>7>1 Pa e of
 
apparently contends that various statements were made by the Defendant Cornell and other LatinKings that are clearly statements falling within the protection of First Amendment freedom of speech and association but which the Government contends were in furtherance of the allegedconspiracy. For example, ¶ 12 of the indictment alleges that public statements made by JorgeCornell and other Latin Kings to promote peace between street gangs and public criticism of theGreensboro police were statements made in furtherance of the racketeering enterprise.
3
6.If the Government does not disclose before trial which statements of the indictedand unindicted alleged co-conspirators it intends to introduce at the trial, trial proceeding will become significantly more protracted as the Court deals with these evidentiary issues. Defendantask this Court to require the Government to submit a Proffer of any statements to be offeredunder Federal Rule of Evidence 801 to the Defendants and this court six weeks before the start of trial so that the Court can address the admissibility of statements before the start of the trial.WHEREFORE, DEFENDANTS JORGE CORNELL, RUSSELL KILFOIL, WESLEYWILLIAMS, SAMUEL VELASQUEZ, AND RANDOLPH KILFOIL respectfully request thatthis Court grant the motion.Respectfully submitted this the 27 day of July, 2012.
th
For example, the Government discovery includes various public statements that were
3
reported in the press and which appear on in the Internet. For example see the Youtube video of Defendant Cornell announcing the filing of a Title VI complaint against the Greensboro PoliceDepartment,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yikc1gl_szo. 3
Case 1'11-cr-0040-.AB Document 168 9iled 07>7>1 Pa e 3 of

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->