Feds decide not to retry lawyer and police officer in mortgage fraud case

It's the right decision. After two really long mortgage trials before Judge Cohn, the government needs to cut its losses. From the Sun-Sentinel:

Federal prosecutors said Wednesday they are dropping all criminal charges against a Fort Lauderdale lawyer and a former police officer arrested last year in a mortgage fraud investigation.

The decision to dismiss the cases against attorney Steven Stoll and former Plantation Police Officer Dennis Guaracino comes a month after a Fort Lauderdale federal jury deadlocked on the charges against them.

The two men and Joseph Guaracino, who is Dennise Guaracino's brother, spent more than five months on trial defending themselves against allegations resulting from "Operation Copout" — an inquiry into a group of police officers involved in suspicious real estate transactions.

The U.S. Attorney's Office will continue pursuing its case against Joseph Guaracino, whose first trial also ended in a hung jury, federal prosecutors told U.S. District Judge James I. Cohn.

Not a good day for Joseph Guaracino though... I wonder why the different decision. Anyone have the scoop here?

And I know I'm being annoying on the press release issue, but shouldn't the feds issue a release about its decision to drop the case against the other two. If you google their names, the arrest press release still comes up... If the USAO can do a release on every illegal lobstering arrest (there seems to be a bunch of those on the website), then certainly they can do one here, no?

Mistrial in 4 month long mortgage fraud trial

This was trial #2 in the cop mortgage fraud trial, where trial #1 resulted in 4 of the 6 defendants being acquitted. For the second group of defendants, the jury hung, and I'm told it was 10-2 for acquittal. I feel for Judge Cohn, the defendants, their lawyers, and the prosecutors. This was an excruciatingly long trial. Is the government going to retry these defendants? As I've said before, I don't think retrials in cases like these are appropriate:

I'm not sure why a prosecutor should be able to retry a case after he couldn't convince a jury to convict. Isn't that reasonable doubt? To force someone to defend against two federal trials is impossible in every way -- financially and emotionally. The government had its shot in what was a controversial prosecution. Now time to go after a real criminal.

Cop/Mortgage fraud trial starts

The estimated 5 week trial is in front of Judge Cohn in Ft. Lauderdale. The Herald is covering it here:

The fraud trial of six law enforcement officers accused of helping to run a multi-million dollar home loan scam got underway Tuesday with opening statements in U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale.

According to federal indictments filed in July, John Velez, Daryl Radziwon, Casey Mittauer, Joseph DeRosa, all current or former Plantation Police officers, along with Lauderhill Police officer Joseph LeGrasta and FBI Special Agent Robert DePriest, of Plantation, fraudulently secured $16.5 million in mortgage loans in a house-flipping scheme during the housing boom several years ago.

The men are charged with offenses, ranging from conspiracy to mail and wire fraud, to obstruction of justice, and making false statements. All but the false statements charge carry penalties of up to 20 years imprisonment. The latter charge comes with as much as five years of prison time.

Is the case about greed or simple cops?

Federal prosecutors argued that the defendants were willing participants in the plan and had to have known Rodriguez and Gulla were forging documents in their names. Prosecutors also suggested the defendants were motivated by earnings they couldn’t achieve through real estate investments made with their own money and their own credit worthiness.

But defense attorneys opened their cases by arguing their clients were good cops and simple investors, too naive about the workings of fast-paced real estate financing to know their personal information was being used to defraud lenders.

Judge Cohn has to try the case twice:

At the conclusion of this trial, a second trial will start for Joseph Guaracino, his brother Dennis Guaracino, also a former Plantation Police officer, and attorneys Steve Orchard and Stephen Stoll, who allegedly helped seal the fraudulent deals by handling the loan closings.

Some of members of the fraud ring had to be tried separately because they have made incriminating statements about other defendants, and prosecutors believe those statements could tarnish possible convictions and bring about mistrials.

Federal Sentencing Guidelines under attack by...

... Lindsay Lohan. 

She tweeted the following:

It is clearly stated in Article 5 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights that...., "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." this was taken from an article by Erik Luna.. "November 1 marked the 15th anniversary of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. But there were no celebrations, parades, or other festivities in honor of this punishment scheme created by Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission... Instead, the day passed like most others during the last 15 years: Scores of federal defendants sentenced under a constitutionally perverted system that saps moral judgment through its mechanical rules."

Speaking of Federal Sentencing Guidelines -- Judge Cohn sentenced former Miramar Commissioner Fitzroy Salesman today to 51 months' imprisonment.  (Here's the Sun-Sentinel article).  The government had asked for 8-10 years.  In Judge Cohn's last big sentencing -- Scott Rothstein -- he went over the government's recommendation...  This time, he explained, Salesman's sentence should be in line with the other politicians caught in the scheme -- former School Board member Beverly Gallagher and former County Commissioner Josephus Eggelletion.  Sounds right. 

Sun-Sentinel profiles Judge Jimmy Cohn

Paula McMahon does a very nice job here, describing him as "a true Southern gentleman" and "tough but fair." He's being profiled because he's got three huge sentencings coming up -- Scott Rothstein, Beverly Gallagher, and Fitzroy Salesman. Judge Cohn did what more judges should do and agreed to be interviewed for the article...

Some highlights from McMahon's article:

• Cohn, 61, is a lifelong Democrat nominated to the federal judiciary in 2003 by Republican President George W. Bush and confirmed 96-0 by a Republican-dominated Senate during a bitterly partisan era. His confirmation hearing was described by the Sun Sentinel as "a striking display of harmony in a contentious arena" but Cohn said that, as a Democrat selected by a Republican president, he was unlikely to face opposition.
• Growing up in Tuskegee, Ala., during the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 60s, the Cohns owned a store and were one of two Jewish families in town. There was no synagogue so Cohn, his parents and his two sisters drove 40 miles west to the Reform temple in Montgomery for religious classes. "The worst part of it was I missed the first half of the NFL game," Cohn said wryly.
• "You want to assimilate, you don't want to be different, no kid wants to be different," Cohn said. "On the other hand, you want to maintain your Jewish heritage and traditions."For Cohn, playing sports was the best way to fit in. He was a quarterback on the Tuskegee High School football team, an all-star second baseman in baseball, ran track and played basketball.
• After passing his bar exams in Alabama and Florida, his sister and parents, who retired to South Florida, persuaded him to interview here. After a brief stint as a Broward public defender, then State Attorney Philip Shaler offered him a $1,000 raise — to $13,000 — to be a prosecutor. Cohn prosecuted cases from 1975 to 1978, working with two men who are still his friends, current State Attorney Mike Satz and defense attorney Richard Garfield.
• Jurors trusted his sincerity and people at the county courthouse still talk about how he won a "not guilty by reason of insanity" jury verdict on a first-degree murder case — a difficult feat under Florida's restrictive law. The defendant, Robert Lee Endicott shot and killed a young woman in Fort Lauderdale in 1979. Endicott is still involuntarily committed 30 years later.
• He awakes at 5 a.m., doesn't use an alarm clock and has never overslept in his life. He's at the gym by 5:30 a.m. and goes to bed by 9 or 9:30 p.m. "unless there's a ball game."

There's a whole lot more, including how Judge Cohn overcame a stutter in the ninth grade, the adoption of his son, how he tried 144 cases one year as a state judge (second place only to Judge Dimitrouleas), watching Seinfeld reruns, loving Alabama, and other gems.

The article is definitely worth a read.

Happy Halloween

So, Judge Cooke sentenced a cooperting UBS guy to probation the other day, and today Judge Cohn sentenced a similarly situated co-defendant to 3 months in prison. Curt Anderson has the details:

A federal judge Friday rejected a plea for probation from a New York businessman who admitted concealing $8 million in secret Swiss bank accounts, imposing instead a three-month prison term in the high-profile tax evasion case.
U.S. District Judge James I. Cohn said toy salesman Jeffrey Chernick deserves credit for his cooperation in the broad U.S. probe of Swiss bank UBS AG. But he said allowing Chernick to avoid prison for filing a false tax return "sends the wrong message" in a case that has made international headlines.
"If the court issues a slap on the wrist, to me the notoriety becomes negative," Cohn said. "It essentially informs the public that you can cheat on your income taxes and get away with probation."
Chernick, 70, had faced between 18 months and two years under federal sentencing guidelines. Prosecutors asked Cohn for a nine-month prison term, noting that Chernick's disclosures led directly to the indictments of a Swiss banker and Swiss lawyer on conspiracy charges as well as charges against other UBS clients in the U.S.

Interesting to see the differences in the judges' comments and the ultimate sentence.

Anyway, I'll leave you all with this video, wishing you all a Happy Halloween:

Find me guilty

Sharhazad Mir Gholikhan is back in trial before Judge Cohn. You remember her -- she's the one who is accused of exporting night vision goggles to Iran. Bill Barzee represented her at her first trial where the jury could not reach a verdict. This time she is representing herself! Yesterday she conducted voir dire and did her opening in her prison khakis. When asked why she wouldn't wear civilian clothes, she responded that she had nothing to hide from the jury....

Here's the trailer from the movie Find Me Guilty, about a mobster who represented himself in the longest trial in U.S. history.

Trials

I was supposed to start a month-long trial this week in West Palm Beach, but it got postponed till next Monday. Here are some stories about other trials that started this week:

1. Participant or just translator? Shahrazad Gholikhan started trial in front of Judge Cohn. She is charged with attempting to export night vision goggles to Iran. This was the case that originally pled out to credit time served, but the government moved to vacate the sentence saying it had made a mistake in the guidelines. Judge Cohn then resentenced her to 29 months. Then the defense moved to vacate the plea, saying that everyone had thought it was a CTS case. Judge Cohn agreed and here we are in trial. Vanessa Blum covers it here:

The strange legal odyssey that led an Iranian woman to surrender last year to face charges she tried to supply Iran with U.S.-made night vision goggles took another turn Tuesday with opening statements to jurors in Fort Lauderdale federal court.A prosecutor told jurors that Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan, 30, conspired with her former husband to illegally purchase thousands of military-grade night vision goggles and traveled to Vienna in 2004 to obtain a sample pair.Gholikhan's attorney countered that she went to Vienna without knowing her ex-husband's plan and served only as his translator.

2. The Venezuelan cash smuggling case started up before Judge Lenard. Here's Curt Anderson's take:

A wealthy Venezuelan businessman went on trial Tuesday on U.S. charges that he illegally acted as his government's agent in an elaborate scheme to conceal the source of $800,000 in political cash carried in a suitcase into Argentina.
Prosecutors say Franklin Duran, 40, was doing the bidding of Venezuela's intelligence service when he and others used promises of $2 million in cash and veiled threats of violence to make the cover-up work. The FBI taped dozens of conversations between Duran and his alleged cohorts on the telephone and in South Florida restaurants and coffee shops.
Jury selection began Tuesday before U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard, with the trial expected to take up to six weeks. Duran, who has pleaded not guilty, faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted of conspiracy and failing to register with the U.S. as a Venezuelan agent.
The purported cover-up involved a cash-stuffed suitcase brought into Argentina aboard a Venezuelan aircraft in August 2007 that prosecutors say was intended as a contribution for new Argentine President Cristina Fernandez. Both she and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have denounced the trial as politically motivated, but U.S. officials deny that.
Still, the case has further strained the already sour relationship between the U.S. and Venezuela. Duran's lawyer, Ed Shohat, has repeatedly insisted the trial is intended mainly to embarrass Chavez and his allies in Latin America and that Duran wasn't even aware of the registration law he is accused of violating.
"Our view is that this case is a political attack," Shohat said.

"If there is a verdict for her and she is ordered to be released, how can the verdict be changed so suddenly!!!!!!!!!"

That was the defendant's mom after Judge Cohn sentenced Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan to 29 months a week after sentencing her to credit time served. I've tried not to blog about the case because I was involved for a brief time early on in the litigation. Here is the intro from Vanessa Blum's article:

Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan, an Iranian woman accused of trying to export night vision goggles, thought her guilty plea last month would be her ticket back to her family.The federal prosecutor had recommended a term of time served for the 30-year-old mother's role in the illegal plot to trade with Iran, a U.S.-designated terrorist nation. U.S. District Judge James Cohn imposed the sentence at an April 25 hearing in Fort Lauderdale federal court.But on Tuesday that smooth resolution unraveled. Determining the sentence had been a mistake, Cohn extended Gholikhan's prison term from time served to two years and five months.Under the law, federal judges can amend sentences within seven business days that result from "arithmetic, technical, or other clear error."


Gholikhan's lawyer Bill Barzee had this to say:

William Barzee, Gholikhan's attorney, called the resentencing unfair and un-American, saying after the hearing that his client feels like she's back in Iran."I don't think it's fair to [agree on a sentence] and have someone plead guilty and then come back and ask the court for a do-over," Barzee said in court Tuesday.

And a sentencing professor commented:

Jonathan Rosenthal, a Fort Lauderdale defense lawyer who teaches sentencing at Nova Southeastern University, said he found a description of Gholikhan's resentencing "troubling" because the guidelines are only one factor judges should consider."I don't understand how on Monday a sentence of four-and-a-half months is reasonable, but on Tuesday, all of a sudden, that sentence is no longer reasonable," Rosenthal said. "Judges are not supposed to give guidelines any undue weight."

It's a valid point. If a sentence of credit time served is reasonable, how can a sentence of 29 months be reasonable the next day -- especially when the prosecutor had agreed to credit time served. If the situation was reversed -- and the defendant didn't like her sentence -- would a judge allow her to come back to court?

Trial dogs...

There isn't a better District to be a lawyer (or to be a blogger!) -- we've got the most interesting cases and the most trials. Jose Padilla starts Monday and I've been writing a bunch about that. But right now, there are two other very high profile trials proceeding.

The first is the Kenneth Wilk cop-killing death penalty trial before Judge Cohn. From reading the coverage (Vanessa Blum is covering it almost every day -- here's the latest article -- and here is Nikki Waller's coverage), it looks to me like the defense may need to focus on saving this man's life instead of going for the NG. It's a very difficult decision in a DP case -- do you go full guns blazing for the NG and perhaps alienate the jury or do you try to keep the jury sympathetic enough to your client so that they don't want to kill him. I've never done a death penalty case before (unlike Wilk's very experienced DP lawyer Bill Matthewman) so thankfully I haven't had to make that crazy hard decision.

Then we've also got the Gustavo Dominguez, sports agent smuggling case going on in Key West before Judge Moore. The Defendant has taken the stand (according to today's Herald). There is no better drama than that. It's also the most difficult decision a defense lawyer makes in any trial. Apparently the defense is that Dominguez paid the drug smuggling convict $225K not to help smuggle but because he was afraid for his and his family's life. If the jury believes him, he'll walk. If they don't, bye bye. Forget about reasonable doubt when the Defendant testifies.

Where else can you get this kind of great stuff?

Death Penalty trial to start this week

Vanessa Blum has a lengthy article about the Kenneth Wilk death penalty trial (SDFLA previous coverage here), which is to start this week in front of Judge Cohn. Apparently the defense is going to argue that Wilk was in the grips of AIDS-related dementia and believed he was acting in self-defense. They will not be able to argue that the victim, Todd Fatta, was using steroids. Here's the intro to the article:

In the beginning, it seemed like a routine operation. Roughly a dozen
Broward Sheriff's Office deputies arrived in the Fort Lauderdale neighborhood of
Coral Highlands on Aug. 19, 2004, to carry out an arrest warrant."Police!" they
yelled before breaking through the front door. "Warrant!"It was then, prosecutors will tell jurors, Kenneth Wilk crouched behind his kitchen counter with a Winchester 94 lever-action hunting rifle. When the officers entered, Wilk opened fire, killing Deputy Todd Fatta, 33, with a single shot to the chest.If convicted of first-degree murder, Wilk, 45, faces the death penalty. As his trial begins this week before U.S. District Judge James Cohn in Fort Lauderdale federal court, defense lawyers have no plans to dispute Wilk fired the shots that killed Fatta and wounded a second officer.Instead, the central question for jurors deciding Wilk's fate will be whether the gunfire was premeditated.Wilk's attorneys, Bill Matthewman and Rafael Rodriguez, have said they plan to argue it was not. They contend Wilk was in the grips of AIDS-related dementia and believed he was acting in self-defense.

I don't believe anyone from the SDFLA has ever been sentenced to death, but I'm not sure about this. Anyone know for sure?

VB was a busy bee the last couple days, with stories on the McCay brothers' sentencing (Michael McCay got 6 1/2 years and brother Robert got 15 months) and the sentencing of a doctor who worked at Mutual Benefits Corp (Clark Mitchell received 8 years).

And thanks to Rumpole for covering the story below. More at his blog.