• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIAATLANTA DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA )) CASE NO. 1:08-CR-00082v. ))CHRISTOPHER STOUFFLET, )Defendant. )____________________________________)AMENDED MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA OFDEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER STOUFFLET
Comes Now, Defendant, Christopher Stoufflet, and pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.Rule 11(d)(2) moves this Court to withdraw his guilty plea. In support thereof, Defendantshows this Honorable Court the following:1.Defendant previously filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. [Doc. 20].Subsequent to this motion, Defendant also moved this Honorable Court to allow him towithdraw from the case. [Doc. 18]. However, prior to the hearing to withdraw from thecase, Counsel and Defendant met and reconciled their differences after Counsel agreed toamend the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea to include among other claims ineffectiveassistance of counsel. Therefore, Defendant hereby adopts and incorporates hispreviously filed motion and adds the following issues to the instant motion. Counselorally apprised both the Government and the Honorable Court, that an amendment wouldbe filed.
Case 1:08-cr-00082-CC Document 22 Filed 04/15/2009 Page 1 of 8
 
2.Before Defendant pleaded guilty, he was insistent about his innocence andproceeding to trial. As discussed in the previously filed motion, Defendant hired manyreputable lawyers to review any and all pertinent rules and regulations as it would applyto his business. Defendant received numerous opinion letters from these lawyersregarding his business. Prior to trial, the Government filed a motion in limine to preventDefendant from raising his defenses of advice of counsel and good faith because he wascharged with inter alia general intent crimes. [Doc. 217]. According to Defendant, hislawyers, Edward T.M. Garland and Donald F. Samuel, both wonderful lawyers, advisedhim that his affirmative defenses could not be raised as a defense to Counts Two throughFour, or Counts Forty-Nine through Fifty-One because they were general intent crimes.But his lawyers did believe he could raise these defenses for the remaining counts of theindictment which included conspiracy and money laundering. Therefore, based on hisattorney’s opinion, Defendant believed he had no choice but to plead guilty since hisdefense was being removed. This advice from his defense lawyers was erroneous andcaused Defendant to enter a guilty plea. Defendant, under the law, would have beenallowed to raise advice of counsel to all counts in the indictment.3.Defendant moves to vacate his plea based on the grounds of ineffective assistanceof counsel. To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Defendant mustshow: (1) his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableprofessional assistance; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would
Case 1:08-cr-00082-CC Document 22 Filed 04/15/2009 Page 2 of 8
 
have been different but for his lawyer's unprofessional errors. Strickland v. Washington
 ,
 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064-68, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).4.In indictment 1:06-CR-337, Defendant Stoufflet was charged in Count One withConspiracy.
1
Furthermore, in Counts Two-Four, Defendant was charged with a violationof 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(2) and CFR Section 1306.04 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Aidingand Abetting), and Aiding and Abetting the Misbranding of Drugs in Counts Forty-Ninethrough Fifty-One. These are the counts where an advice of counsel defense was indispute, as stated above. Commonly, an advice of counsel defense cannot be raised if oneis indicted for a general intent crime. Since the Government believed that the charges,other than the money laundering counts, were general intent crimes, they moved thisHonorable Court to deny the defense to right to raise an affirmative defense of advice of counsel. However, the Government is mistaken because conspiracy is a specific intentcrime, and Defendant was charged as an aider and abettor in all the other counts.Furthermore, Defense Counsel misinterpreted the same issue overlooking the fact that if Defendant was indicted as an aider and abettor, this increases the mens rea, and he couldraise an advice of counsel defense.5.The Government sought to prove that Defendant was not the actual distributor,but was an aider and abettor since he did not personally conduct any acts of distribution.
1
 
The original indictment is 1:06-CR-337. When Defendant agreed to enter a guilty plea, the Governmentfiled an information under case number 1;08-CR-00082. However, Defendant was advised to plead guiltybased on the indictment not the information that was subsequently filed.
Case 1:08-cr-00082-CC Document 22 Filed 04/15/2009 Page 3 of 8
of 00

Leave a Comment

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