Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
DOJ Response Brief - Prosecutorial Misconduct Motion - Lindsey

DOJ Response Brief - Prosecutorial Misconduct Motion - Lindsey

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,696 |Likes:
Published by Mike Koehler

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Mike Koehler on Sep 06, 2011
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

08/20/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.United States AttorneyROBERT E. DUGDALEAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Criminal DivisionDOUGLAS M. MILLER (SBN: 240398)Assistant United States Attorney NICOLA J. MRAZEK JEFFREY A. GOLDBERGSenior Trial Attorneys1300 United States Courthouse312 North Spring StreetLos Angeles, California 90012Telephone: (213) 894-2216Facsimile: (213) 894-6436Email: douglas.m.miller@usdoj.govAttorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICAUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,v.ENRIQUE FAUSTINO AGUILAR  NORIEGA, ANGELA MARIAGOMEZ AGUILAR, KEITH E.LINDSEY, STEVE K. LEE, andLINDSEY MANUFACTURINGCOMPANY,Defendants.))))))))))))))CR No. 10-1031(A)-AHMGOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO THEDEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF INSUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISSTHE INDICTMENT WITH PREJUDICE DUETO ALLEGED REPEATED ANDINTENTIONAL GOVERNMENTMISCONDUCT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS;EXHIBITSHearing: October 17, 2011, 3:00 p.m.(Courtroom 14)Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its attorneys of record, the UnitedStates Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section, and the United StatesAttorney for the Central District of California (collectively, “the government”), hereby files
 
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 642 Filed 09/05/11 Page 1 of 91 Page ID #:17302
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
its response to the defendants’ July 25, 2011 supplemental brief (DE #632) in support of their May 9, 2011 motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice due to alleged repeated andintentional government misconduct (DE #505). The government’s response is based uponthe attached memorandum of points and authorities, declarations, and exhibits; the files andrecords in this matter; and any evidence or argument presented at any hearing on this matter.DATED:September 5, 2011Respectfully submitted,ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.United States AttorneyROBERT E. DUGDALEAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Criminal Division/s/DOUGLAS M. MILLER Assistant United States Attorney NICOLA J. MRAZEK JEFFREY A. GOLDBERGSenior Trial AttorneysCriminal Division, Fraud Section
ii
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 642 Filed 09/05/11 Page 2 of 91 Page ID #:17303
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGETABLE OF AUTHORITIES
................................................v
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
...........................1
I.INTRODUCTION
...................................................1
II.SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
.........................................4
III.ARGUMENT
.......................................................7
A.The Government Did Not Commit Misconduct, Let Alone“Purposeful” and “Prejudicial” Misconduct That “Permeated”the Case
......................................................71.There Was No Misconduct During the Investigation
 
..............7a.Participation by the Prosecutors in the Drafting andEditing of Agent Binder’s Search Warrant Affidavit WasPermissible, and Their Inadvertent Inclusion of anInaccurate Statement Does Not Constitute Misconduct......8 b.The Government Did Not Lie to the Court aboutParticular ESI Language Contained in Agent Binder’sAffidavit..........................................11c.The Government Did Not Suggest to the Grand Jury ThatBecause ABB Had Engaged in Bribery Then LMC MustHave Also Engaged in Bribery........................132.The Government Did Not Play Gameswith its Witness Lists....15a.The Government Was Not Required to Call Every Person Named on its Original Witness List, and Sufficient Notice Was Given Regarding the Five Witnesses Not Named on That List.................................15 b.The Government’s Submission of an Over-Inclusive Listof Possible Witnesses for the Purposes of Voir Dire WasPrudent and Not Misconduct..........................18c.The Inclusion of One CFE Officials Name in the
 
Government’s Early Witness Lists Is Not “Emblematic”of Any Government Deception......................19
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 642 Filed 09/05/11 Page 3 of 91 Page ID #:17304

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Vikingsnow liked this

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)//-->