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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
USA v. Pou, Et Al. (Alfredo Duran's Motion for Judgment of Aquittal)

USA v. Pou, Et Al. (Alfredo Duran's Motion for Judgment of Aquittal)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 124 |Likes:
Published by Mike Koehler

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Mike Koehler on May 06, 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

05/06/2012

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED
STATESDISTRICTCOURTSOUTHERNDISTRICTOFFLORIDACASENO.89-802-CR-KEHOE
UNITED
STATES
OF
AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOAQUINPOUt
ALFREDOG.
DURANandJOSEGUASCH,
Defendants.
_______________________________
DEFENDANT
DURAN'
SMO'fIONFOR.JQPGMENTOFACOUI'ITALAND~RANDUMOFLAW
TheDefendant,AlfredoG.Duran("Duran")movesforaRule
29,Fed.R.Crim.P'
I
judgment
of
acquittal.Duran
is
chargedin
a
one-countIndictmentwithconspiringto
commitanoffense
against
the
UnitedStates,inviolation
of
the
GeneralConspiracystatute,
Title
18U.S.C.
§
371.
Specifically,
the
Indictment
allegesthat
Duran,
together
with
histwo
named
co-defendant
s,
Joaquin
Pouand
Jose
Guasch
J
and
alleged
unindictedco-conspirator,Robert
Gurin
("Gud
n"),
conspired
to
violate
Section
78dd-2
ofTitle15,
United
StatesCode(hereinafter"theAct
n).
LAWOFFICES
OF
BIERMAN,SHOHAT
&
LOEWY,
PA
SUITE
1730,
COURTHOUSECENTER,MIAMI,FLORIDA358·7000
 
Du_ranrespectfullysubmitsthatbasedontheevidencebeforethisCourtnoreasonablejurycouldfindthatthepurpose
of
anyoftheallegedintendedpaymentswastoassist
a
domesticconcern
oranissuer
inobtainingorretaining
business
for
orwith,
or
directing
businessto,
any
person.Moreover,thegovernmenthasfailedtoadducesufficientevidencetoprove
any
intendedpaymentswerenotfaci
lit
ating
or
expeditingpaymentsfor
the
purposeofexpeditingorsecuringroutinegovernmentalaction(i.e.greasepayments).Accordingly,DefendantDuranmustbeacquitted.IntroductionEssentialElementsOfAConspiracyToCommitProhibitedForeignTIad~PracticesIn
ordertosurv
i
ve
aRule29
motion
I
the
governmentmustadducesufficientevidenceoneachand
every
element
of
theoffensecharged.Itisthereforecriticaltodefinetheessentialcomponents
ofthecrimeofconspi
racyto
cornmi
tthe
"ProhibitedForeignTradePractices".lJ
II
In1988,
Congressextensively
revised
the
Act.In
onesuch
revision,Congressclar
i
f
iedthescopeofSect
ions
78dd-2
and
78dd-lbysubstitutingthecatchline"Prohibited
Foreign
TradePractices"
for"Corrupt
Practices."Pub.L.
418,
lOOthCong.,
§§
5000(c)and5000(a),
£Qdi~
at,15U.S.C.A.
§§
78dd-2(a)and78dd-l(a)(WestSupp.1989).
2
 
An
individua1
is
gui1
ty
ofconspi
racy,
onlyifthegovernmentproves,beyond
ar
easonabIedoubt
I"(
l)anagreementbetweentwoormorepersons,
(2)
anunlawfulpurpose,and
(3)
anovertactcommittedbyoneoftheco-conspirators
in
furtheranceof
the
conspiracy."
~~dStatesv,
WieschenbeLq,
604F.2d
326,
331(5thCir.1979);United
States
v,
White,569
F.2d263
(5thCir.),
c~rt.
deniSld,
439U.S.848(1978).In
addition,thegovernmentmust
prove
thatthedefendantchargedwithconspi
racy
under
18U.
s.c.
§
371
possessed..
atleast
the
degree
of
criminalintentnecessary
for
thesubstantiveoffense
itself."UnitedStates
v.
Feola,420U.S.671,686(l975)i
Unitedstates
v.
Wi~schen~erg,
604F.2d326,
331(5thCir.
1979).2J
ThisCircuit
has
declaredthat
Feola's
holdingonthecriminalintentrequiredtosustain
a
conviction
for
conspiringtoviolate
a
federalstatute
is
"clarionclear".Uniteg
States
v,
Beil,
577F.2d1313,1314-15(5thCir.
1978),~.
denied,
440U.S.946
(1979).
If
the
underlyingoffenserequiresspecificintent,thentheconspiracyoffenserequiresatleast
that
same
specificintent.
Wieschenberq,604F.2d
at
331
(Becausethesubstantiveoffenseofexportingwithouta
licensearticles
designated
onthe
United
States
Munitions
List
r
equ
i
res
speci
f
ic
intent
I
conspiracy
to
commit
that
offense
2..1
AnydecisionoftheformerFifthCircuithandedpriortoOctober1,1981,isbindingwithintheEleventhCircuit.Bonner
v.
CityofPritchard,661
F.2d1206,1209
(11thCir.
1981).
3

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)//-->