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
Sigillito Moves for New Trial

Sigillito Moves for New Trial

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,376|Likes:
Published by nphillips0304

More info:

Published by: nphillips0304 on May 04, 2012
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

10/20/2014

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))Plaintiff, ))v. ) No. 4: 11 CR 168 LRR)MARTIN T. SIGILLITO, ))Defendant. )
DEFENDANT SIGILLITO’S CORRECTED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
 NOW COMES Defendant Martin T. Sigillito, by and through his attorney, Douglas P.Roller, and, pursuant to Rule 33, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and this Court’s May 2,2012 Order files this corrected Motion for New Trial and moves this Court for entry of an ordergranting Defendant a new trial. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows.
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
1. Defendant respectfully submits that a new trial is warranted on the grounds thatDefendant was denied his Fifth Amendment right to due process as a result of sustainedgovernmental misconduct.
A. TRIAL
2. A number of instances of prosecutorial misconduct occurred at trial. Individually,and certainly collectively, these instances denied Defendant due process and a new trial must begranted. Included are the following:
 a. Presentation of False Testimony
On direct examination, Elizabeth Stadjuhar testified in response toprosecutor’s question that she had taken only $12,000 from the lender’s ACHaccount. On cross-examination, she admitted she had actually stolen $81,000.
Case: 4:11-cr-00168-LRR Doc. #: 262 Filed: 05/02/12 Page: 1 of 9 PageID #: 3556
 
2She also testified that at the time she was asked the question on directexamination, she and the prosecutor were both aware of the correct amount.
 b. Improperly influencing the jury by referencing Bernard Maduff 
 After the Court admonished the government prosecutor the first timeBernard Maduff’s name was mentioned (a convicted defendant in a notoriousPonzi scheme), a different prosecutor asked a question which elicited anotherreference to Bernard Maduff. The double reference to Maduff was particularlyprejudicial because of the constant reference to "Ponzi scheme" throughout thetrial.
 c. Statement of Personal Belief 
 During his examination of the defendant the prosecutor expressed hisbelief that defense witness Mindy Finan had lied during her testimony.
 d. Intimidation of Defense Witness
.Prior to trial and during trial, the prosecutor consistently intimated thatdefense expert witness John Laughlin had committed perjury before the grand jury and would therefore necessarily have to assert his Fifth Amendment privilegeon cross-examination. The prosecutor's position caused Laughlin to request thathe not be called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant.
e. Allowing Witnesses to Discuss Testimony
 Many of the government witnesses attended the majority of the entire trial.These witnesses could be seen talking in groups to one another and often speakingto Agent Cosentino as a group. As Rollie Baer testified, witness Phil Rosemanneven took a number of witnesses out to dinner. Although Rollie Baer denied
Case: 4:11-cr-00168-LRR Doc. #: 262 Filed: 05/02/12 Page: 2 of 9 PageID #: 3557
 
3discussing his testimony or the testimony of other witnesses during breaks in thetrial, or at the Rosemann dinner, his denial of ever discussing the testimony of other witnesses exceeded the bounds of credibility. Some witnesses even used thesame descriptive phrases such as “bogus.”Because of the potential for such discussions to modify a witness’stestimony, the Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing on this issue. WitnessesPat Fielder, Linda Givens, Phil Rosemann, Rollie Baer and Dick Aguilar wereamong the witnesses engaging in this conduct.
 f. Structuring Witness Testimony
The plea agreements of key witnesses Brown and Smith containedvirtually identical language in the Factual Basis section of each agreement.Furthermore, each Factual Basis contained language in large measure identical tothe language used in the indictment, including descriptive headings. Given thedisparate roles of Smith and Brown in the alleged conspiracy, the prosecutor’spreparation of the factual basis in each plea agreement was obviously a means of ensuring compatible testimony by each witness, consistent with the indictment.The Plea Agreements thus provided a “road map” of each witness’s testimony.Such structuring of testimony is clearly improper and prejudicial to Defendant.A review of the transcript of the trial may reveal additional instances of structuring witness testimony.
Case: 4:11-cr-00168-LRR Doc. #: 262 Filed: 05/02/12 Page: 3 of 9 PageID #: 3558

Activity (3)

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

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)//-->