rakoffmanufjurisdiction

8/7/2019 rakoffmanufjurisdiction

1/16

09 Cr. 524

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK--------------- --------------------xUNITES STATES OF AMERICA,

-v -

CHIGBO PETER UMEH, e t a l . ,Defendants .

- - - - xJED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J .

The Indic tment in t h i s charges a fa r - f lung conspiracy bydefendants Chigbo Pete r Umeh, Jorge Salazar Castano, Konstant inYaroshenko, Nathanie l French, Kudufia Mawuko, and Marcel AcevedoSarmiento to vio la te the fede ra l narco t ics laws through drugt r a f f ick ing t h a t extends from South America to Afr ica to Europe tothe United Sta tes . The ro le of defendant Yaroshenko i s summarized inparagraph 7 of the Indic tment as fol lows:

[Yaroshenko] was an a i r c r a f t p i l o t and av ia t ion exper t whot ranspor ted thousand-ki logram quan t i t i e s o f cocaine throughoutSouth America, Africa , and Europe. Yaroshenko ind ica ted t ha t heu t i l i zed and managed a t l eas t f ive d i f f e r e n t a i rp lanes throughwhich he arranged fo r the t ranspor t a t ion of t h i s cocaine . In h iscapac i ty as a p i l o t and businessman, Yarhoshenko agreed to supplythe a i r c r a f t , p i l o t s , and crew t ha t were to be used fo r shipmentso f cocaine from South America to Liber ia , as wel l as from Liber iato o ther loca t ions within West Africa . Yaroshenko understood t ha tfrom Liber ia , por t ions of th i s cocaine would subsequent ly beimported in to the United Sta tes .

On October 13, 2010, Yaroshenko moved to d i ss theIndic tment and fo r o ther r e l i e f . In h is suppor t ing memorandum ("Def.

I Technical ,the Ninth Superseding Indic tment ( \\ Indictment") .

Case 1:09-cr-00524-JSR Document 74 Filed 01/03/11 Page 1 of 16


2/16

Mem."}, Yaroshenko argued t h a t the Indictment should be dismissedbecause flextreme governmental misconduct which inc ludes (1)t o r t u re , b ru t a l and inhumane t rea tment of the Defendant dur ing h is

de ten t a t an un ide n t i f i ed loca t ion in L iber ia by undisc losedi nd iv idua l s , one of whom was th e DEA agen t i nden t i f i ed in theIndictment as 'CS ' ; (2) se c re t t r a ns f e r of Konstant in Yaroshenko tothe United Sta tes in v i o l a t i o n of fore ign and i n t e rn a t i o n a l laws; (3)se c re t record ings o f the conversa t ions in Ukraine i n v i o l a t i o n ofUkrainian laws and i n t e rna t iona l law; [and] (4) manufacturing theUnited Sta tes j u r i c t ion . " Def. Mem. a t 1 2. Alte rna t iveYaroshenko argued t h a t the Indictment should be dismissed because theUnited S ta t e s Government "manufactured j u r i s d i c t i o n . " Id . a t 2.Addi t iona l ly , he sought : " ( i ) an Order fo r [an] ev iden t ia ry hear ingon the i s sues of outrageous governmental misconduct and manufacturedj u r i ion; ( i i ) an Order suppress ing record ings ob ta ined inv io la t ion of laws in Ukraine; ( i i i ) an Order s t r i k ing surplusage fromthe Ind ic tment ; and {iv} an Order r equ i r ing the Government to prov idediscovery pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federa l Rules of CriminalProcedure and permi t t ing the Defendant to f i l e o th e r motions based onthe responses to the d iscovery r eques t s . "

The Government f i l ed a Memorandum Opposi t ion ("Gov. Mem.")on October 27, 2010; Yaroshenko f i l ed rep ly papers on November 3,2010; and the Cour t heard o ra l argument on November 18, 2010. Afte rcare fu l cons ion , the Cour t i s sued an Order on November 29, 2010

2



3/16

denying motion in i t s e n t i r e ty . s Opinion expla ins thereasons t ha t dec is ion and rea f f i rms th e den ia l a l l r espec t s .

The four prongs of Yaroshenko 's "extreme governmental

misconduct" motion, as quoted above, are in many respects d i s t i n c t .For example, the manufactured j u r i s d i c t i on a l l e g a t i o n has little o rnothing to do with th e o ther th ree components, as Yaroshenko himse l fimpl i c i t ly recognizes by separa te ly repea t ing it as an independentbas i s di smissa l . Nonetheless , Yaroshenko i n s i s t s t h a t a t l e a s tthe f i r s t two prongs b ru t a l t rea tment and il abduc t ion - arei n t e r r e l a t e d . Thus, he a l leges t ha t on May 28, 2010, he was"abducted" from the Royal Hote l Monrovia and brought to anun iden t i f i ed loca t ion in Libe r i a , where a t l e a s t two United Sta tesagents were presen t . Def. Mem. a t 3. Yaroshenko cla ims he was thento r tu red , abused, s t a rved , depr ived of s leep , and bea ten so severe lyt h a t he l o s t tw o t ee th . Aff idav i t of Konstant in Yaroshenko, datedOctober 9, 2010, Def. Ex. A, 7-30. He fu r t h e r a l l eg es t h a t h isas l an t s threa tened him with rape, and h is family with dea th . SeeDef. Mem. a t 4 5. He cla ims t h a t a f t e r severa l days o f s b ru t a lt rea tment , American agents t r anspor t ed him by plane to the UnitedSta tes . Yaroshenko Aff . 37 42. (Yaroshenko appeared in t h i s

t r i c t on June 2, 2010. Gov. Mem. a t 2 .) This removal, he says ,was unlawful both because of the background of b r u t a l i t y t ha t led upto it and a l so because it v io la ted i n t e rn a t i o n a l law. Although heacknowledges t ha t the Liber ian Minis t ry of Ju s t i c e i s sued a va l id

3



4/16

Expulsion Order fo r h i s removal on May 30, 2010, he cla ims t ha tLibe r i a otherwise disregarded the law under the Al ien and Nat iona l i tyLaw of the Republic of Libe r i a ("ANL") i n e f fec tua t ing the Expuls ion

Order. Def. Mem. a t 9- 10 . He fu r the r contends t ha t th e UnitedSta tes v io la ted A rt le 13 of the In te rna t iona l Covenant on Civ i l andPol i t i ca l Rights , Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, which providest h a t " [a )n a l i e n l awful ly the tory of a Sta te Par ty to thepresen t Covenant may be expe l led therefrom only in pursuance of a

IIdec is ion reached in accordance with the law Def. Mem. a t10 . Addi t iona l ly , he cla ims the Government fo rc ib ly broughtYaroshenko (a Russian c i t i zen) to the United S ta t e s without no t i fy ingRuss of h is a r re s t , an ac t ion t h a t purpor t ed ly v io la t ed the ViennaConvention on Consular Rela t ions , Apr. 18 , 1961 , 23 U.S.T. 3227,T.I .A.S . No. 7502 (entered i n to force in U.S. Dec. 13 , 1972) . Def.Mem. a t 11 .

Nonetheless , even i f one accep t s a l l these a l l ega t ions andas se r t ions as t rue fo r purposes of t h i s motion, they still reduce,ana ly t a l ly , to two d i s t i n c t cla ims: t h a t Yaroshenko was to r tu redand beaten in connect ion with h is a r r e s t and de ten t ion , and t h a t hewas abducted i l l e g a l l y . The law i s wel l s e t t l e d t ha t n e i t h e r o f

these cla ims warrants di smissa l of an ind ic tment .As to the former cla im, whi le po l ice b r u t a l i t y o r o th e r

misconduct may lead to suppression of a defendan t ' s s ta tements o ro ther evidence garnered thereby, it does no t l ead to the di smissa l of

4

..._-_....



5/16

the indic tment o r "depr ive the Government of the oppor tuni ty to prove[the defendant ' s ] g u i l t through the in t roduc t ion o f evidence whollyunta in t ed by th e po l ice misconduct." United S ta t e s v. Crews, 445

U.S. 463, 474 (1990) . For example, in Brown v. Doe, 2 F.3d 1236 (2dCir . 1993), the Second C i r cu i t held t ha t di smissa l o f the ind ic tmentwas n ot appropr ia te where a defendan t wa s repea ted ly bea ten a f t e r h isa r r e s t . Id . a t 1240. Simi la r ly , in the recen t case of United Sta tes

No. S10 98 Cr. 1023 (LAK) , 2010 WL 1839030 (S.D.N.Y. May10, 2010) , Judge Kaplan held t h a t the defendan t ' s cla ims t ha t he hadbeen to r tu red by th e CIA i n v io la t ion of h is r i gh t s under th e DueProcess Clause d id not s t a t e a ground fo r d i smis sa l .

As to the abduct ion cla im, even assuming arguendo t ha tYaroshenko's removal v io l a t ed var ious laws and t r e a t s and thus wasthe equiva lent o f an i l l e g a l , fo rc ib le abduct ion, th e Supreme Courthas f l a t ly held t ha t Uthe power of a cour t to t ry a person fo r [aJcr ime i s not impaired by the f a c t t h a t he had been brought within thec our t ' s j u r i s d i c t i on by reason of a ' f o rc i b l e abduct ion. ' f f Fr i sb iev. Col l ins , 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952) (c i t ing , 119 U.S.436, 444 (1886)).

Yaroshenko acknowledges t ha t these p receden t s defea t th e

f i r s t tw o prongs of h is Ugovernmental misconduct" motion i f takensepara te ly . But he i n s i s t s t h a t a s p ec i a l s i t ua t ion i s presentedwhen both c ircumstances are present , t h a t i s , where th e fo rc ib leabduct ion i s accompanied by t o r tu r e . According to Yaroshenko, t h i s

5



6/16

pa r t i c u l a r combination of circumstances e n t i t l e s him to re I f underthe Second C i r cu i t case o f United Sta tes v. Toscanino, 50 0 F.2d 26 7(2d Cir . 1974) . defendant in was conv ic ted o f

conspiracy to import narco t ics in to th e United Sta tes v io la t ion of21 U.S.C.S. 173 and 174. He appealed th e convic t ion , arguing t h a t"the cour t acquired j u r i s d i c t i on over him unlawful ly through theconduct of American agents who kidnapped him in Uruguay, used i l l e g a le lec t ron ic su rve i l l ance , t o r tu red him and abducted him to the UnitedSta tes fo r the purpose of prosecut ing him here ." 500 F.2d a t 268.The Toscanino cour t recognized the s tence of the Ker-Fr i sb iedoc t r ine , b ut as se r ted t h a t the doc t r ine had been "ero[ded]" and"weakened" by o ther Supreme Court dec i s ions , inc luding Rochin v.Cal i fo rn ia , 342 U.S. 165 (1952) , and United Sta tes v. Russe l l , 411U.S. 423 (1973) . rd . a t 273. Specu la t ing t ha t a c o u r t might " 'someday be presented with a s i t ua t ion in which th e conduct of lawenforcement agents i s so outrageous t h a t due process pr inc ip les wouldabsolute bar the government from invoking j u d i c i a l processes toobta in a conv ic t ion , ' " a t 273 (quot ing = = ~ ~ = = I 411 U.S. a t 431 32) I the [ed] a cour t tod ives t i t s e l f of j u r i s d i c t i on over the person of a defendant where it

has been acquired as the r e s u l t of the government 's de l ibe ra te ,unneces , and unreasonable invas ion o f the accused ' sc o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i gh t s . " a t 275. Accordingly , th e cour t remandedthe case fo r an ev iden t hear ing to determine if th e defendant

cour t held t h a t due process "

6



7/16

could o f fe r cred ib le evidence ln suppor t of h is a l l ega t ions . Id . a t281.

The f i r s t two prongs of Yaroshenko's "governmental

misconduct" motion a re arguab ly s imi l a r enough to those in Toscaninot h a t i f Toscanino were still good law, t h i s Cour t might be obl iged tog ran t Yaroshenko's r eq u es t fo r an ev iden t ia ry hear ing . (No more thant h i s would be warranted a t t h i s s tage , however, as the Government hasnot only f i rmly denied a l l of Yaroshenko 's a l l ega t ions b u t alsoadduced photographs and othe r evidence t h a t sugges t t h a t h is cla imsa re f ab r ica ted . ) But no such hear ing i s requi red here , because it i sreasonably c l e a r t h a t Toscanino i s no longer good law.

To begin wi th , desp i t e t ha t a sse r t ion in Toscanino t h a t theKer-Fr i sb ie doc t r ine had been undermined, the Supreme Cour treaf f i rmed the Ker-Fr i sb ie doc t r ine with in a year o f Toscanino, andhas done so repea tedly ever s ince . See, e . g . , United Sta tes v.Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 660-62, 670 (1992) (a f f i rming KerFr i sb ie and hold ing t h a t respondent ' s abduct ion did not p r o h ib i t h i st r i a l in the United Sta tes) i Immigrat ion & Natura l i za t ion Servo v.Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039-40 (1984) ("The 'body' o r i de n t i t yof a defendant o r respondent in a c r i mi n a l o r c i v i l proceeding i s

never i t s e l f suppress ib le as a f r u i t of an unlawful a r r e s t , even i fit i s conceded t h a t an unlawful a r r e s t , search , o r i n t e r roga t ionoccur red .") i United S ta t e s v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 474 (1980) (Adefendant " is not himsel f a suppress ib le 'fruit,' and the i l l e g a l i t y

7



8/16

of h is de ten t ion cannot deprive the Government of th e oppor tuni ty toprove h is g u i l t through th e in t roduc t ion of wholly unta in tedby the pol i ce misconduct ." ) i Stone v. Powell , 428 U.S. 465, 485

(1976) ( " jud ic i a l proceedings need not abate when the de fendan t ' sperson i s u n co n s t i t u t i o n a l l y se ized" ) ; = = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = , 420 U.S.103, 119 (1975) ("Nor do we r e t r e a t from the es tab l i shed ru le t h a ti l l e g a l a r r e s t o r de ten t ion does not vo id a subsequent convic t ion ." )Tel l ing ly , moreover , "no cour t has ev e r app l i ed [Toscanino] todismiss an indic tment ." ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , 681 F. Supp. 909, 919(D.D.C.) (1988) , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = - ~ ~ ~ ~ , 85 9 F.2d 953 (D.C. Cir .1988) .

Furthermore, th e Second Circu i t i t s e l f r e t r e a t e d from th eToscanino dec is ion ly . In United Sta tes ex r e l .Lujan v. Gengler , 510 F.2d 62 (2d Cir . 1975), c e r t . denied, 421 U.S. 1001, 44 L. Ed. 2d 668, 95 S. Ct. 2400 (1975) , th e Second Circu i t again considered a case which a defendant had a l leged an i n t e rna t iona l abduct ion, but th i s t ime had no t a l leged t o r tu r e o r o the r b ru t a l t rea tment . The Second Circu i t c l a r i f i e d and narrowed Toscanino, holding t h a t it appl ied only where the defendant could prove " to r tu re , bru t a l i t y , and s imi la r outrageous conduct. ! !

510 F.2d a t 65. Therefore , there was no v i o l a t i o n of the due ss c lause when the defendant a l leged only t ha t he had been abducted . a t 65-66. Matta -Bal les te ros v. Henman, 89 6 F.2d 255, 261(7th Cir . 1990). To be sure , Lujan might be read to impl i t l y

8



9/16

suppor t Yaroshenko 's content ion t h a t Toscanino still app l ies when th eabduct ion i s accompanied by t o r tu r e o r the l i ke (a l though here thea l leged t o r t u re appears unre la t ed to the ac t s o f abduc t ionthemselves) . But, as noted above, the Second Circu i t hassubsequently held t h a t the di smissa l of an indictment i s no tappropr ia te when a defendant was repea tedly bea ten a f t e r h is a r r e s t ,see Brown, supra , even though in Brown, unl here , the bea t ingswere d i r e c t ly a t t r i bu t e d to the U.S. agents (as opposed to Liber iana u thor i t i e s ) . In shor t , while the Second Circu i t has neverexp l i c i t l y over ru led Toscanino, the fac t t h a t both of the p i l l a r s onwhich it r e s t s have been removed suggests t ha t 1 t h a t remains i s arh e t o r i c a l facade wholly lacking in l eg a l founda t ion .

Viewing a l l t h i s , the cour t s of o th e r c i r c u i t s haveconcluded, in e f f e c t , t h a t Toscanino i s a dead l e t t e r , even in theSecond Circu i t . See, e . g . , United S ta t e s v. Best , 304 F.3d 308, 312 13 (3 d Cir . 2002) ("In l i gh t of these cases , it appears c l e a r t h a tthe Ker sbie doc t r ine has not eroded and t ha t the excep t iondescr ibed in r e s t s on shaky ground. H) ; un i ted S ta t e s v.Mitche l l , 957 F.2d 465, 47 0 (7 th Cir . 1992) (quest ioning Toscanino 's"cont inu ing c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v i ta l i tyH in l i gh t of the Supreme Cour t ' s

repea ted r ea f f i rmat ion of the Ker Fr i sb ie doct r ine) i MattaBal les te ros v. Henman, 896 F.2d 255, 261 (7th Cir . 1990) ("Weconclude t ha t Toscanino, a t l e a s t as fa r as it crea tes anexc lus ionary ru le , no longer r e t a i n s v i t a l i t y and the re fo re dec l ine

9



10/16

to adopt it as the law o f t h i s c i r c u i t . " ) i United S ta t e s v. Darby,

th e744 F.2d 1508, 1531 (11th Cir . 1984) ("[T]he con t inu ing va l i d i t y of

approach i s ques t ionable a f t e r the i n t e rven ing dec i s ionin Gers te in v. P u g h . . " ) . This Court agrees , and accord ing lyconcludes t ha t Yaroshenko 's motion to dismiss the indictment becauseof the a l leged combinat ion of b r u t a l i t y and abduc t ion f a i l s as amat te r of law.

From t h i s it a l so fo l lows t h a t Yaroshenko's a l l ega t ions tha tth e United Sta tes v io la t ed in t e rna t iona l law in e f fec tua t ing h i st r ans to the United Sta tes are i r r e l e va n t . However, th e Cour tnotes t h a t these content ions a re i nva l id in any even t . I t i suncontrover ted t h a t Yaroshenko was ex t rad i t ed to the United S ta t e spursuant to a f a c i a l l y va l id Expulsion Order sued by the Liber ianGovernment. See Def. Mem. Ex. D. Moreover, the United S ta t e s i s notrespons ib le fo r ensuring t h a t a fore ign sovereign compl ies with i t si n t e rn a l laws in i s su ing an ex t rad i t ion o r expu ls ion . See, e . g . ,

, 515 F.2d 68, 72 (2d Cir . 1975) ("The United= = ~ ~ = - ~ = = ~ = - ~ ~ = = ~ Sta tes Government d id not owe appe l lan t any ob l iga t ion to enforce h isas se r ted r i g h t under Chilean law.") i United S ta t e s v. Sa l inas Doria ,No. 01 Cr. 21 (GEL) I 2008 WL 4684229, a t * 4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2008)("[C]harges aga ins t a defendant in an American cour t should not bedismissed so le ly because o f an leged defec t th e j u d i c i a l ordip lomat ic processes l ead ing to t h a t de fendan t ' s ex t rad i t i on . " ) .Addi t iona l ly , Yaroshenko cannot himself a s s e r t t ha t th e Government/s

10



11/16

a l leged f a i l u r e to no t i fy Russian consula te of h is a r r e s tv io la ted th e Vienna Convent on Consular Rela t ions , as t h a t Trea tycrea tes no j ud i c i a l l y enforceab le ind iv idua l r i gh t s ,

S ta t e s v. De La Pava, 268 F.3d 157 (2d Cir . 2001) , and even i f it d idcrea te such r i gh t s , dismissa l of the indictment would not be theappropr ia te remedy. See Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 350(2006) i United S ta t e s v. Gomez, 644 F. Supp. 2d 362, 372 (S.D.N.Y.2009).2

Turning to the t h i rd prong of Yaroshenko's "governmentalmisconduct" motion, Yaroshenko contends t ha t the Government 'sac t t obta in ing record ings of him in th e Ukraine v io la t edprov i s of Ukrain ian law t ha t p roh ib i t a l l fore ign law enforcementa c t i v i t i e s with in i t s t e r r i t o r y , and the United Sta tes , i nf a i l i ng to r eq u es t au thor iza t ion to conduct such a c t i v i t i e s , thereby

Assi s t ance Trea ty (\\MLAT").i o l a t ed Ar t i c l e 2 of the MutualDef. Mem. a t 8. But even assuming t ha t the United Sta tesfa i led to obta in such au thor iza t ion (a content ion which th eGovernment here f l a t l y d ispu tes ) , noth ing e i t he r Ukrain ian law northe MLAT suggests t ha t v io la t ions of these laws s r i s e to anyr i g h t of suppress ion or o ther j ud i c i a l l y enforceab le r i gh t s of the

defendant in a U.S. cour t . See, e . g . ,F.3d 108, 130 (2d r . 2007). On th e con t ra ry , it i s wel l se t t l ed

)- It may so be the noted t ha t the Russian hasno t f i l ed any pro t e s t with th i s Court .1 1



12/16

t h a t [ t ]he admiss ib i l i t y of evidence in a United S ta t e s cour tIdepends so le ly on compliance with United S ta t e s law." Id . a t 129.Accordingly, no t only does the t h i rd prong add nothing to the dea r th

of suppor t fo r Yaroshenko's governmental misconduct motion, but soh is separa te motion to suppress th e record ings on the grounds t ha tthese were obtained i n v i o l a t io n of Ukrainian law and/or MLAT must bedenied .

Turning f i na l ly to the four th prong of Yaroshenko's"governmental misconduct" motion, which Yaroshenko a l so ra i ses as anindependent bas i s fo r di smissa l , Yaroshenko cla ims t ha t th eGovernment "manufactured j u r i sd ic t ion" in t h i s case . The concept of"manufactured fede ra l j u r i sd ic t ion" i s "proper ly understood not as anindependent defense , but as a subse t o f three poss ib le defensetheor ies : ( i) the defendan t was ent rapped in to committ ing a fede ra lcrime, s ince he was not pred i sposed to commit th e crime in the waynecessary fo r the crime to qua l i fy as a f edera l of fense ; ( i i ) thede fendan t ' s due process r i gh t s were v io la t ed because th e government 'sac t ions in inducing th e defendant to commit the f edera l crime wereoutrageous; or ( i i i ) an element th e fede ra l s t a t u t e has not beenproved, so fede ra l cour t s have no j sd ic t ion over the cr ime."

United Sta tes v. Wallace, 85 F.3d 1063, 1065-1066 (2d . 1996)( in t e rna l c i t a t i ons omit ted) . In h is rep ly b r i e f , Yaroshenkoc l a r i f i e s t h a t he re I s on the t h i rd poten t defense, Def. ReplyMem. a t 13. S p ec i f i c a l ,he argues t ha t the "Indic tment does not

12



13/16

s e t fo r th any spec i f i c f ac tu a l a l l e g a t i o n t ha t supports theconc lus ion t ha t Konstant in Yaroshenko agreed to br ing any drugs i n tothe United Sta tes . " Def. Mem. a t 13.

As t h i s Court explained in United Sta tes v. Al Kassar , 582 F.Supp. 2d 488 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) , "the Second C i r cu i t has re fused todismiss indictments 'when the re i s any l ink between th e f edera lelement and a volun tary , af f i rmat ive a c t of th e defendant . Thus,when confronted with s i t u a t i o n s i n which (i) the [Government]in t roduces a fede ra l element in to a non-federa l crime and ( i i ) th edefendant then t akes volunta ry ac t ions t ha t impl ica te the fede ra lelement , fede ra l j u r i s d i c t i on has no t been improperlymanufactured. ,n 582 F. Supp. a t 493 (quot ing Wallace, 85 F.3d a t1066 ( in te rna l quota t ion marks omit ted))LaPorta , 46 F.3d 152, 154 (2d Cir . 1994) ( re j ec t ing cla im ofmanufactured j u r i s d i c t i on where "defendants themselves committed thesu b s t a n t i a l j u r i s d i c t i ona l a c t of burning th e government [car] II )(c i ta t ion and i n t e rn a l quota t ion marks omit ted) ;Tung Lam, 714 F.2d 209, 21 1 (2d Cir . 1983) ( re j ec t ing cla im ofmanufactured j u r i s d i c t i on where defendan t "h imse l f committedsubs tan t i a l j u r i s d i c t i ona l a c t o f br inging drugs in to the United

Sta tes") .In t h i s case , the Indic tment rebuts on i t s face the cla im of

manufactured j u r i s d i c t i on . Spec i f i ca l ly , th e Indic tment l i s t sYaroshenko's many af f i rmat ive , volunta ry ac t ions impl i ca t ing fede ra l

13



14/16

j u r i s d i c t i on . For example, the Indic tment s t a t e s t ha t when"Yaroshenko agreed to supply the a i r c r a f t , p i l o t s , and crew tha t wereto be used fo r shipments of cocaine from South America to Liber ia

[ ,] Yaroshenko unders tood t ha t from Libe r i a , por t ions of t h i scocaine would subsequent ly be imported in to the uni ted Sta tes . "Ind ic t . 7. In fur therance of th i s plan , Yaroshenko met with h isco-consp i ra to r s and others to d i scuss the " l og i s t i c s , pr ic ing , andsecur i ty fo r t r ansa t l an t i c drug shipments ," In d i c t . 1, andindicated t ha t he would charge $4.5 mil l ion fo r the a i r shipment off ive tons of cocaine from South America to West Africa , where itwould then be loaded onto a d i r e c t f l i gh t to New York. See Ind ic t .

j - r . Without mult ip ly ing examples, the Indic tment c lea r ly chargesins tances where Yaroshenko took "voluntary ac t ions t ha t impl ica te thefedera l element[s]" of the charged cr imes, which i s enough fo rj u r i s d i c t i ona l purposes . See Wallace, 85 F.3d a t 1066. Anyremaining f ac tua l disputes regarding th i s i s sue can and should beresolved a t t r i a l .

Yaroshenko also contends t ha t there was an i n s u f f i c i e n t nexusbetween him and the uni ted Sta tes , such t ha t prosecut ing him herev io la t es h is Fi f th Amendment due process r i gh t s . See Def. Mem. a t18; United Sta tes v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 111 (2d Cir . 2003) ( " [ I ]norder to apply e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l l y a f edera l cr imina l s t a t u t e to adefendant cons i s ten t with due process , there must be a su f f i c i en tnexus between the defendant and the United Sta tes , so t ha t such

14



15/16

3

app l ica t ion would not be a rb i t r a ry or fundamental ly u n fa i r . " )(quoting United Sta tes v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245, 248-49 (9th Cir . 1990)(c ion omit ted) . Again, according to the tment , Yaroshenkoknew t h a t a t l e a s t a por t ion of the cocaine would be sold in th eUnited Sta tes ; he was a l so t rumental in ensur ing the cocaine wouldreach intended d es t i n a t i o n . I t the re fo re cannot be f a i r ly arguedt h a t h is conduct was so Uunrelated to American i n t e re s t s as to render[his] prosecut ion in the United Sta tes a rb i t r a ry o r fundamental lyunfa i r . " Yousef, 327 F.3d a t 112. The "manufactured j u r i sd ic t ion"argument must the re fo re f a i l .

Yaroshenko also moves to s t r i ke surplusage from t h i sIndictment on the ground t h a t it i s pre jud ic i a l . Def. Mem. a t 20.However, u if evidence of the a l l e g a t i o n i s admiss ib le and r e levan t tothe charge, then rega rd le s s of how prejudic the language i s , itmay not be s t r i cken . " (quoting United S ta t e s v. DePalma, 46 1 F.Supp. 778. 797 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)}. In t h i s case . Yaroshenko asks t ha tthe re fe rence to FARC as an i n t e rn a t i o n a l t e r r o r i s t organ iza t ion bes t r i cken from the Indictment .} Def. Mem. a t 20. However. t h i sre fe rence i s r e levan t to the conspiracy charge , as it expla ins th escope and purpose of the conspiracy. The "Government may broadly

Yaroshenko a l so reques ts t h a t the Court s t r i ke the a l l ega t iont h a t Yaroshenko " t ranspor ted cocaine through South America.Afr ica . and Europe" because "Yaroshenko i s charged with th e cr imeof conspiracy to import narco t ics not th e ac tu a l t ranspor t a t ionof drugs . " Def. Mem. a t 21. This cla im mer i t s no discuss ion .however. as the Indic tment c lea r ly Yaroshenko with thet ranspor t a t ion of drugs. Ind ic t . 11.

15



16/16

a l lege t h a t which it in tends to prove and t ha t which, underappl icable pr inc le s of law it may prove,u DePalma, 461 F. Supp. a t797, and i t s re to FARC as a po te n t i a l o rc h e s t r a t o r of th e

conspi racy f a l l s wel l within the scope of pe rmiss ib l e a l l e g a tMoreover, the Cour t agrees with the Government t h a t the motionpremature in any event , as the p roper t ime to weigh the re levance ofevidence aga ins t i t s po te n t i a l p r e jud ic i a l e f f e c t i s dur ing th e t r i a li t s e l f . This i s espec ia l ly t rue given t h a t the defendan t wi l l su f f e rno ac tu a l pre jud ice from th e inc lus ion of t h i s re fe rence in theInd ic tment , s ince it i s t h i s Cour t ' s prac t i ce never to submit anIndictment to the ju ry . According ,the motion to s surplusagei s denied as wel l .

Fina l ly , Yaroshenko moves the Cour t to orde r th e Governmentto provide Rule 16 discovery mate s . Def. Mem. a t 22. The Cour tf inds , however, t ha t the Government has fu l ly compl with i t s Rule16 o b l ig a t , and th e motion i s accord ing ly den ied as moot.

For a l l the foregoing reasons , the Cour t hereby rea f f i rms i t sOrder of November 29, 2010 denying Yaroshenko 's mot in a l lr espec t s .

J ~ . S . D . J . Dated: New York, New YorkDecember 30, 2010

16


rakoffmanufjurisdiction

Documents

Transcript of rakoffmanufjurisdiction