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
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Stanford Co-Defendant's Motion to Sever Trial

Stanford Co-Defendant's Motion to Sever Trial

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,112 |Likes:
Published by DealBook
Motion by Laura Pendergest-Holt to sever her trial from that of her co-defendant, R. Allen Stanford.
Motion by Laura Pendergest-Holt to sever her trial from that of her co-defendant, R. Allen Stanford.

More info:

Published by: DealBook on Jun 13, 2010
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

06/14/2010

pdf

text

original

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

ROBERT ALLEN STANFORD;
LAURA PENDERGEST-HOLT;
GILBERTO LOPEZ;
MARK KHURT; and
LEROY KING.

§§§§§§§§§
Criminal No. H-09-342
(J. Hittner)
DEFENDANT LAURA PENDERGEST-HOLT’S
MOTION FOR SEVERANCE
COGDELL & ARDOIN, LLC

1401 McKinney St., Suite 1625
Houston, Texas 77010
Phone: (713) 426-2244
Fax: (713) 426-2255

DAN COGDELL
State Bar No. 04501500
S.D. Tex No. 3810

JAMES ARDOIN
State Bar No. 24045420
S.D. Tex No. 571281

Attorneys in-charge for Defendant
LAURA PENDERGEST-HOLT
Flood & Flood

914 Preston, Suite 800
Houston, Texas 77002
Phone: (713) 223-8877
Fax: (713) 223-8879

CHRIS FLOOD
State Bar No. 07155700
S.D. Tex No. 9929

Of Counsel for Defendant
LAURA PENDERGEST-HOLT
Case 4:09-cr-00342 Document 244 Filed in TXSD on 06/09/10 Page 1 of 14
2
INTRODUCTION

LAURA PENDERGEST-HOLT (“Holt”) moves this Court, pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 14, to sever her trial from Robert Allen Stanford’s (“Stanford”) trial. Stanford and his counsel have prejudicially impacted Holt’s right to a fair trial based on their egregious and circus-like conduct in: the criminal case before this Court, the insurance coverage action in the Southern District of Texas before The Honorable Nancy F. Atlas, and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action in the Northern District of Texas before The Honorable David C. Godbey. Accordingly, this Court should exercise its discretion and grant Holt’s severance to ensure justice.

ARGUMENT & AUTHORITY

Although “[o]rdinarily, defendants who are indicted together should be tried together” United States v. Erwin, 793 F.2d 656, 665 (5th Cir. 1986) a court “may grant a severance if it appears that the defendants will be prejudiced by a joint trial.”Id. (citing to FED. R. CRIM. P. 14(a)). Additionally, a severance must be granted “if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants or prevent the jury from making a reliable determination of guilt or innocence.”United States v. Fernandez, 559 F. 3d 303, 317 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing to United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1572 (5th Cir. 1994)).

Case 4:09-cr-00342 Document 244 Filed in TXSD on 06/09/10 Page 2 of 14
3

In this case, there is a serious risk that Holt’s right to a fair trial will be jeopardized if she is tried together with Stanford. This risk stems from the ridiculous conduct of Stanford and his lead counsel, which is sufficient to justify an exception to the Supreme Court’s general rule that co-conspirators should be tried together.Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537 (1993).1

A.
The Stanford and Counsel Circus

The behavior of Stanford and his latest collection of lawyers (The Bennett- Nguyen Joint Venture), who have flaunted court orders, set up potentially unethical entities to practice law in Texas, have been accused of committing insurance fraud and bankruptcy fraud, and have faked health issues in court, has made it impossible for Holt to receive a fair trial. This ridiculous behavior has not gone unnoticed. The media nationwide has become enthralled with the circus show Stanford and his counsel have cast against this Court, Judge Atlas’ Court, and Judge Godbey’s Court regarding the never-ending cycle of lawyers in this case.2 For example, The


1
See also United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 439 (5th Cir. 2001).
2
This is a sampling of the media converge on this issue.See Andrew Ross Sorkin,Once
Again, Mr. Stanford Wants New Lawyers, The New York Times Dealbook, March 10, 2010,
available at http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2010/03/30/ once-again-stanford-seeks-new-
lawyers; David Scheer and Alison Fitzgerald,Stanford Attorneys’ Exit ‘Screams Fraud,’ Spurred
SEC (Update2), available at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/ news?pid =20601103&sid
=arwyfUgv9leY; Mary Flood, Yet another lawyer wants to enter Stanford case, Houston
Chronicle, June 3, 2010,available at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ business/
stanford/7035307.html; Amir Efrati,How Many Lawyers Does it Take to Defend Allen
Stanford?, The Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2010, available athttp://blogs.wsj.com/
law/2010/06/07/how-many-lawyers-does-it-take-to-defend-allen-stanford; Martha Neil,How
Many Lawyers Does Constitution Allow? Onetime Billionaire Allen Stanford May find Out, ABA
Journal, April 6, 2010, available at http://www.abajournal.com/ news/article/
Case 4:09-cr-00342 Document 244 Filed in TXSD on 06/09/10 Page 3 of 14

You're Reading a Free Preview

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