IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ROBERT ALLEN STANFORD;
MARK KHURT; and
1401 McKinney St., Suite 1625
Houston, Texas 77010
Phone: (713) 426-2244
Fax: (713) 426-2255
State Bar No. 04501500
S.D. Tex No. 3810
State Bar No. 24045420
S.D. Tex No. 571281
914 Preston, Suite 800
Houston, Texas 77002
Phone: (713) 223-8877
Fax: (713) 223-8879
State Bar No. 07155700
S.D. Tex No. 9929
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.
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)).
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
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
Now bringing you back...
Please enter your email address below to reset your password. We will send you an email with instructions on how to continue.
Does that email address look wrong? Try again with a different email.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?