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
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Rajaratnam's Motion for Bail Pending Appeal

Rajaratnam's Motion for Bail Pending Appeal

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6,662|Likes:
Published by DealBook
Raj Rajaratnam's motion for bail pending appeal.
Raj Rajaratnam's motion for bail pending appeal.

More info:

Published by: DealBook on Sep 12, 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

11/27/2012

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------x:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ::-v- :: S2 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH)RAJ RAJARATNAM, ::Defendant. ::---------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RAJ RAJARATNAM’SMOTION FOR BAIL PENDING APPEAL
John M. Dowd (admitted
 pro hac vice
)Terence J. Lynam (admitted
 pro hac vice
)James E. Sherry (admitted
 pro hac vice
)Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP1333 New Hampshire Ave., NWWashington, D.C. 20036(202) 887-4386Samidh Guha (SG-5759)Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP OneBryant Park  New York, NY 10036(212) 872-1000
 Attorneys for Raj Rajaratnam
September 9, 2011 New York, New York 
Case 1:09-cr-01184-RJH Document 311 Filed 09/09/11 Page 1 of 29
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
II.
ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................1
A.
MR. RAJARATNAM POSES NO RISK OF FLIGHT OR DANGER TOTHE COMMUNITY ................................................................................................2
B.
MR. RAJARATNAM’S APPEAL RAISES SUBSTANTIAL ISSUESLIKELY TO RESULT IN REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL ...............................4
1.
The Denial of Mr. Rajaratnam’s Motion to Suppress the WiretapEvidence Presents a Substantial Question for Appeal .................................6
a.
The wiretaps should have been suppressed because theinitial application failed to demonstrate necessity. ..........................7
 b.
The wiretaps should have been suppressed because theinitial application failed to demonstrate probable cause. ...............14
c.
The wiretaps should have been suppressed because thegovernment was not authorized to use electronicsurveillance to investigate insider trading. .....................................16
2.
Suppression of the Wiretap Evidence Will Require Reversal and a New Trial. ..................................................................................................20
III.
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................22
Case 1:09-cr-01184-RJH Document 311 Filed 09/09/11 Page 2 of 29
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)C
ASES
 Aguilar v. Texas
,378 U.S. 108 (1964) .................................................................................................................11
 Alabama v. White
,496 U.S. 325 (1990) .................................................................................................................15
Chapman v. California
,386 U.S. 18 (1967) ...................................................................................................................21
 Dalia v. United States
,441 U.S. 238 (1979) .................................................................................................................18
 Franks v. Delaware
,438 U.S. 154 (1978) .................................................................................................................10
Spinelli v. United States
,393 U.S. 410 (1969) .................................................................................................................11
Thompson v. Wagner 
,631 F. Supp. 2d 664 (W.D. Pa. 2008) ......................................................................................13
United States v. Bianco
,998 F.2d 1112 (2d Cir. 1993)...................................................................................................10
United States v. Canfield,
212 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2000)....................................................................................................15
United States v. Concepcion
,579 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2009).........................................................................................10, 13, 14
United States v. Coplan
,1:07-CR-00453 (S.D.N.Y., order issued Jan. 21, 2010) ............................................................6
United States v. Ebbers
,1:02-CR-01144 (S.D.N.Y., order issued Sept. 8, 2005) ............................................................6
United States v. Feguson
,758 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1985).....................................................................................................15
United States v. Fermin
,32 F.3d 674 (2d Cir. 1994).......................................................................................................15
United States v. Galanis
,695 F. Supp. 1565 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).......................................................................................4, 5
Case 1:09-cr-01184-RJH Document 311 Filed 09/09/11 Page 3 of 29

Activity (6)

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

You're Reading a Free Preview

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