Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
C
ROWELL
& M
ORING
LLP
A
TTORNEYS
A
T
L
AW
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONTO DISMISS INDICTMENT
Jan L. Handzlik (State Bar No. 47959)GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400 EastSanta Monica, California 90404Telephone: (310) 586-6542Fax: (310) 586-0542Email: handzlikj@gtlaw.comAttorneys for Defendants Lindsey ManufacturingCompany and Keith E. LindseyJanet Levine (State Bar No. 94255)Martinique Busino (State Bar No. 270795)CROWELL & MORING LLP515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071Telephone: (213) 622-4750Fax: (213) 622-2690Email: jlevine@crowell.commbusino@crowell.comAttorneys for Defendant Steve K. LeeUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,v.ENRIQUE FAUSTINO AGUILAR  NORIEGA, ANGELA MARIAGOMEZ AGUILAR, LINDSEYMANUFACTURING COMPANY,KEITH E. LINDSEY, and STEVEK. LEE,Defendants.Case No. CR 10-1031(A)-AHM
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF INSUPPORT OF MOTION TODISMISS THE INDICTMENT WITHPREJUDICE DUE TO REPEATEDAND INTENTIONALGOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT;DECLARATIONS OF ALAINBRUNELLE, JANET I. LEVINE,AND MARTINIQUE E. BUSINO;EXHIBITS
Date: September 8, 2011Time: 3:00 p.m.Judge: Hon. A. Howard Matz
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 632 Filed 07/25/11 Page 1 of 44 Page ID #:16531
 
C
ROWELL
& M
ORING
LLP
A
TTORNEYS
A
T
L
AW
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
i
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONTO DISMISS INDICTMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage(s)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.........................................2I. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................2II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................................2III. THE PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR GOVERNMENTMISCONDUCT.............................................................................................5IV. THE COURT REPEATEDLY EXPRESSED CONCERN WITH THEGOVERNMENT’S ACTIONS, BOTH BEFORE AND DURINGTRIAL .........................................................................................................11V. SUMMARY OF INSTANCES OF GOVERNMENTMISCONDUCT...........................................................................................23A. Instances Discussed in the Motion to Dismiss..................................23B. Other Instances of Government Misconduct....................................25VI. GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT PERMEATES THIS CASE................28A. The Investigation, Including The Drafting And Execution Of TheAffidavits In Support Of The Search And Seizure Warrants And ThePresentation To Both Of The Grand Juries, Was Permeated WithMisconduct........................................................................................291. The Searches...........................................................................29a. The False Sorvill Statement .........................................29 b. The ESI Search.............................................................312. The Grand Jury.......................................................................33B. The Government’s Discovery And
Brady
Abuses WereMisconduct........................................................................................35C. The Government’s Intent To Shield Its Investigation From TheLight of Day And Its Actions Doing So Are Misconduct................37
 
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 632 Filed 07/25/11 Page 2 of 44 Page ID #:16532
 
C
ROWELL
& M
ORING
LLP
A
TTORNEYS
A
T
L
AW
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
ii
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONTO DISMISS INDICTMENT
D. Presenting Special Agent Dane Costley As A SummaryWitness Was Misconduct..................................................................39E. The Prosecution’s Introduction Of ABB’s Criminal Conduct – And Attempt To Present A “Pattern Of Bribery” – Despite TheCourt’s Pretrial Ruling Excluding The Evidence And TheProsecution’s Jury Argument Highlighting The StrickenABB Evidence Was Misconduct ......................................................44F. The Government’s Conduct As It Relates To Jean Guy LaMarcheWas Improper, From Beginning To End..........................................46G. The Government Played Games With Its Witness List....................49H. The Government Committed Misconduct in its ClosingArgument By Expressly Urging The Jury To Convict Based OnA Willful Blindness Theory of Knowledge, Even Though TheCourt had Rejected Such An Invitation............................................50VII. THE PERVASIVE GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT NECESSITATES DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT.........................53A. The Cumulative Effect Of Government Misconduct ThroughoutThe Investigation, Discovery And Trial Phases Of This CaseWarrants Dismissal...........................................................................541. The Misconduct Was Flagrant................................................542. The Misconduct Caused Substantial Prejudice......................58B. Allowing The Defendants To Stand Trial On An IndictmentKnowingly Secured, In Part, By Material False Testimony ViolatesDue Process.......................................................................................61VIII. THE INDICTMENT SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE....62IX. CONCLUSION...........................................................................................63DECLARATION OF ALAIN BRUNELLE.........................................................64DECLARATION OF JANET I. LEVINE.............................................................67
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 632 Filed 07/25/11 Page 3 of 44 Page ID #:16533
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more