UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF
NEW
YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
-
v.
-
KEITH RANIERE, Defendant. No. IS-cr-204 (NGG) (S-2)
Date
of
service:
March
9, 2020
ORAL
ARGUMENT
REQUESTED MEMORANDUM
OF
LAW IN SUPPORT
OF
DEFENDANT
KEITH RANIERE'S MOTION
FOR
A
NEW TRIAL
DUE
TO
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE
OF PERJURY THE
GOVERNMENT KNEW
OR
SHOULD HAVE
KNOWN
BY
TWO
KEY PROSECUTION
WITNESSES
Marc
A.
Agnifilo, Esq. Teny R. Geragos, Esq.
Of
Counsel
Paul DerOhannesian Il, Esq. Danielle
R.
Smith, Esq.
Of
Counsel
BRAFMAN ASSOCIATES,
P.e.
767 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New
York, NY 10017 (212) 750-7800
DEROHANNESIAN DEROHANNESIAN
677 Broadway, Suite 707 Albany, NY 12207 (SIS) 465-6420
llorneysfor
Defendant Keith Raniere
Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 853 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 13596
Table
o
Contents
I.
INTRODUCTION
..
.......................
..
..
..
..
..
.....................
..
............................... _ ... _
.
..... _
.
...
..
..
. 1
IT.
BACKGROUND
.... _
.
..
..
..
...
..
...
..
..
....
.........................................................
..
..........
..
......
..
...
..
3 A. Pretrial Proceedings .....
..
..
........
..
..
................
..
..
.....
..
.
..
...........................
..
......
..
........
..
3 B. Trial
....
..
...........................................
..
............
..
...........
....
...............................
..
.......
..
7 C. The Glazer Complaint.
.
....
..
.........
..
........
..
....
..
........
....
...................................
..
....... 14
1.
Jane
Doe
1 ........
..
........
......
....
..
....
..
............
......
.......................................... 14
2.
JaneDoe2
.......
..
...................
....
................................................................
16
3. Jane
Doe
4 ........
..
..................................
....
...............
..
................... _ ........
..
. 17
III
ARGUMENT:
The Witnesses Peljured Testimony and the
Government's
Failure to Correct It and Indeed Prevent Further Questions on the
Matter
Requires a
New
TriaL .... 17 A. Legal Standard .........
..
..
............
.............
....
....
..
..
..............................
..
......
......
.
..
......
18
I. Materiality
of
the
Peljury
to the
Jury's
Verdict ................................
....
..... 1
B
2.
Prosecution's
Awareness
..
......
....
............
....
....
..
......................................... 19
B. Daniela and Nicole Committed Perjury ............
......
..
......
....
.......................
..
........
..
20
C.
The Government
Knew or
Should Have Known
of
the Perjury ........................... .20 D. The Perjury
Was
Material ...................................................................................... 22
E.
The Government Demonstrated Willful Blindness and Failed to
lnvestigate-
or
Worse, Objected
in
Order
to Keep Material Information From the Jury
..
.
..
..... 24 IV.
CONCLUSION
.......
..
...............................
..
..
............................................
..
..
...................... 25
Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 853 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 29 PageID #: 13597
Table
o
Authorities Statutes
18
U.S.C. § 3500 ............................................
..
.
..
............................................................................. 5
18
U.S.C. § 1623
....
...................
..
.................................................................................................
..
. 20
Cases
Blumberg
v. Garcia, 687 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (C.O. Cal. 2010) ...................
..
................................. .24
Commonwealth
ofN.
Mariana
Tsland
sv
.
Bowi
e, 243 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.
2001)
.
..
.................... .24 Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S. Ct. 1105 (1974) .....................................................
..
...
..
18, 23 Delaware v. Van
Ar
sdall, 475 U.S. 673, 106 S. Ct. 143 I (1986)
..
..
....
..
........................
..
............. 23
DuBose v.
Lefevr
e, 619 F.2d 973 (2d Cir. I 980) ..........................................................................
19
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S.
150,92
S. Ct. 763 (1972) ...................................................
21,22
Green v.
Mc
Elroy, 360 U.S.
474,76
S. Ct. 1400 (1959) ........................................................
..
..... 19 Mark Vicente, et. al. vs. Keith Raniere, e
t.
a
I.,
20-cv-485
(EK-SMG)
(E.O.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2020) (Okts. No.
I, 4)
.................................................................................................... .............
1,
7
MotTi
v.
Yl
sL
447
F.3d 735 (9th Cir. 2006)
....
.......
..
.....................................................
..
............
24 Napue
v. Illinois,
360
U.S. 264, 79 S. Ct. 1173 (1959) ....
..
...............................................
19,20,24
People
v.
McFarley, 3 I A.O.3d 1166
(N.Y.
App. Div. 4th
Dep't
2006) ...................... , ............... 19
People v.
Wall
ert, 98 A.O.2d
47
N.Y.
App. Div. 1st
Oep't
1983) ..................................
19,21,23
Perk i ns v. LeFevre, 69 I F .2d 6 16 (2d Ci
r.
1982) ....................................................
..
.............. 18, 22 Shih Wei Su v. Filion, 335 F.3d I
19
(2d. Cir.
2003)
.........................................................
19,22,24
Stevens v. Bordenkircher, 746 F.2d 342 (6th Cir. 1984) .......
..
..
..
..................................................
17
Uniled Stale . Agul's,
427
U.S. 96, 97 S.
Ct.
2393 (1976) .................................................. 19,21
United States v. Monteleone, 757 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2001) .
..
................
..
...............................
18,
24
II
Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 853 Filed 03/09/20 Page 3 of 29 PageID #: 13598