(English) 1-07-cr-00543-DLI, 159-main

8/9/2019 (English) 1-07-cr-00543-DLI, 159-main

1/4


2/4

1Though t he r edact ed ver si ons of t he af f i davi t s i ncl ude a

cover sheet so t hat t he Cour t and t he par t i es can easi l y i dent i f yt hem, t he government does not pr opose t o read t hat por t i on t o thej ury.

2

gover nment pr oposes t hat t he t est i f yi ng wi t ness r ead the rel evantpor t i ons of t he af f i davi t s i nt o t he r ecor d, r at her t han admi t t i ngt hem as exhi bi t s. 1

The gover nment submi t s t hat t he encl osed r edact edst atement s f ul l y compl y wi t h Br ut on because each of t he edi t ed

st at ement s, st andi ng al one, does not i ncul pat e any of t he co-def endant s t o t he cr i mes char ged i n the i ndi ct ment .

I n Br ut on, t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat t he i nt r oduct i onof a co- def endant s st at ement i mpl i cat i ng t he def endant i n aj oi nt t r i al vi ol at ed t he def endant s r i ght s under t heConf r ont at i on Cl ause. However , t he br oad r i ght del i neat ed i nBr ut on has been ci r cumscr i bed by t he Supr eme Cour t t o al l ow t headmi ssi on of a co- def endant s st at ement wher e i t i s r edact ed t oel i mi nat e any r ef er ence t o t he ot her def endant s exi st ence. SeeMarsh, 481 U. S. at 209.

The Second Ci r cui t has r epeat edl y appr oved of t headmi ss i on of st at ement s made by def endants t hat have beenr edact ed t o r epl ace t he names of any co- def endant s wi t h neut r alwor ds, wi t h no i ndi cat i on t hat t he or i gi nal st at ement cont ai nedactual names. See Uni t ed St ates v. J ass, 569 F. 3d 47, 54- 64 ( 2dCi r . 2009) ( appr ovi ng subst i t ut i on of anot her per son) ; Uni t edSt at es v. Sani n, 252 F. 3d 79, 84- 85 ( 2d Ci r . 2001) ; Uni t ed St at esv. Smi t h, 198 F. 3d 377, 385 ( 2d Ci r . 1999) ; Uni t ed St at es v.Wi l l i ams, 936 F. 2d 698, 700 ( 2d Ci r . 1991) ( appr ovi ngsubst i t ut i on of guy) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Tut i no, 883 F. 2d 1125,1135 ( 2d Ci r . 1989) . Such st atement s ar e admi ssi bl e as l ong ast he st at ement st andi ng al one does not ot herwi se connect co-def endant s t o t he cr i mes. See Sani n, 252 F. 3d at 85; Wi l l i ams,936 F. 2d at 700; Tut i no, 883 F. 2d at 1135 ( a r edact ed st at ement ,i n whi ch t he names of co- def endant s ar e repl aced wi t h neut r alpr onouns, wi t h no i ndi cat i on t o t he j ur y t hat t he or i gi nalst at ement cont ai ned act ual names, and wher e t he st at ementst andi ng al one does not other wi se connect co- def endant s t o t hecr i mes, may be admi t t ed wi t hout vi ol at i ng a co- def endant s Br ut onr i ght s) ( emphasi s added) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Kyl es, 40 F. 3d 519,526 ( 2d Ci r . 1994) ( st at ement whi ch repl aced a def endant s namewi t h t he neut r al pr onoun he, so t hat i t r ead he got me i nt ot hi s, t hese bank r obber i es di d not st andi ng al one connect t he

def endant t o t he r obber i es) .

Case 1:07-cr-00543-DLI Document 159 Filed 03/08/10 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1038


3/4

3

The f act t hat t he st at ements, when r ead i n conj unct i onwi t h ot her evi dence, mi ght l ead t o an i nf er ence of a co-def endant s gui l t does not r ender i t i nadmi ssi bl e. See e. g. ,Ri char dson, 481 U. S. at 208 ( no Br ut on vi ol at i on becausest at ement s di d not , on t hei r f ace, i ncr i mi nat e t he def endant s,but r ather di d so onl y when l i nked wi t h other evi dence at

t r i al ) ; Tut i no, 883 F. 2d at 1135; Smi t h, 198 F. 3d at 385( f i ndi ng r edacted st atement admi ssi bl e because i t was noti ncr i mi nat i ng on i t s f ace, not wi t hst andi ng ot her evi denceper mi t t i ng j ur y t o make i nf er ence i dent i f yi ng co- def endant ) ; seeal so Wi l l i ams, 936 F. 2d at 700. The cri t i cal i nqui r y i s . . .not whet her a j ur y mi ght i nf er f r om ot her f act s . . . t hat adecl ar ant s neut r al al l usi on t o a conf eder at e mi ght haver ef er enced t he def endant . I t i s whet her t he neut r al al l usi onsuf f i ci ent l y conceal s t he f act of expl i ci t i dent i f i cat i on [ i n t heor i gi nal st at ement . ] J ass, 569 F. 3d at 61.

Wi t h respect t o t he def endant s argument s t hatadmi ssi on of t he st atement s woul d vi ol ate t he Supr eme Cour t shol di ng i n Cr awf ord v. Washi ngt on, 541 U. S. 36 ( 2004) , t he SecondCi r cui t has hel d t hat Cr awf or d di d not over r ul e[ ] Ri char dson orexpand[ ] t he hol di ng of Br ut on. Uni t ed St at es v. Lung FongChen, 393 F. 3d 139, 150 ( 2d Ci r . 2004) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.Scot t , 624 F. Supp. 2d 279, 289- 90 ( S. D. N. Y. 2008) ( r ej ect i ngdef endant s argument t hat admi ssi on of co- def endant s st atementt hat used onl y neut r al pr onouns vi ol at ed Cr awf or d) ; Uni t ed St at esv. St one, No. 05 CR 401 ( I LG) , 2007 WL 4560599, at *1- 2 ( E. D. N. Y.Dec. 18, 2007) ( same) .

I n thi s case, t he gover nment has r edact ed eachdef endant s s t at ement s t o remove any speci f i c r ef er ence to t heco- def endant s. Ther e i s not hi ng i n any of t he st at ement s t hatcoul d be const r ued as f aci al l y i ncr i mi nat i ng t o t he decl ar ant sco- def endant s or t hat st andi ng al one connect s t he co-def endant s t o t he st at ement s. I n addi t i on, t he r edact i ons, al ongwi t h t he pr oposed manner of i nt r oduct i on, wi l l conceal t he f actt hat t he st at ement s or i gi nal l y i dent i f i ed co- def endant s. Ofcour se, at t he t i me t he Cour t admi t t ed any r edact ed st atement si nt o evi dence, t he gover nment woul d respect f ul l y r equest al i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on t hat a def endant s st at ement s may not beconsi der ed by t he j ur y i n any way agai nst any co- def endant . The

use of such a l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on has been appr oved by t heSecond Ci r cui t and hel d t o over come any Cr awf ord chal l enge, evenwher e t he st atement const i t ut ed a 34- page catal og of [ t hedef endant s] l i f e wi t h al Qaeda . . . I n r e Ter r or i st Bombi ngsof U. S. Embassi es i n East Af r i ca, 552 F. 3d 93, 135- 36 & n. 36 ( 2dCi r . 2008) .



4/4

4

For t he reasons set f or t h above and i n the gover nment spr i or memoranda of l aw, t he gover nment r espect f ul l y submi t s ( 1)t hat t he encl osed r edacted st atement s shoul d be admi t t ed i n t hemanner proposed by t he gover nment , and (2) t hat t he def endantsmot i ons t o sever shoul d be deni ed.

Respect f ul l y submi t t ed,

BENTON J . CAMPBELLUNI TED STATES ATTORNEY

By: / s /Mar shal l L. Mi l l erJ ef f r ey H. KnoxBer i t W. Ber gerZai nab AhmadAssi st ant U. S. At t or neys( 718) 254- 6421/ 7581/ 6134/ 6522

cc: Mi l dr ed Whal en, Esq. ( vi a ECF and emai l )Len Kamdang, Esq. ( vi a ECF and emai lDani el Nobel , Esq. ( vi a ECF and emai l )Dor i c Sam, Esq. ( vi a ECF and emai l )Mi chael Huest on, Esq. ( vi a ECF and emai l )Zoe Dol an, Esq. ( vi a ECF and emai lKaf ahni Nkr umah, Esq. ( vi a ECF and emai l )Toni Mess i na, Esq. ( vi a ECF and emai l )


(English) 1-07-cr-00543-DLI, 159-main

Documents

Transcript of (English) 1-07-cr-00543-DLI, 159-main