Ben Kuehne event and other weekend news

This should be something:

BENEDICT P. KUEHNE
In Grateful Appreciation of the
Overwhelming Community Support of his Innocence

Invites the Community to his
APPRECIATION RECEPTION
On the Occasion of his Vindication

Sky lobby
Bank of America tower
100 S.E. 2nd Street
Miami, Florida 33131
Thursday, December 10, 2009
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
RSVP to: RSVP@kuehnelaw.com

In other news, former AUSAs Mike Tein and Richard Scruggs sqaured off before their state court trial, which starts Monday morning. Tein filed a motion alleging prosecutorial misconduct and the judge allowed Tein to cross-examine Scruggs. Apparently, there were fireworks:

Fri., Dec. 4 2009 @ 9:11PM




Richard Scruggs is usually the guy asking people tough questions and getting witnesses to spill the beans. But today Miami-Dade's veteran public corruption prosecutor was on the receiving end of an intense grilling. And he was not enjoying himself.It went down inside the courtroom of Judge Beatrice Butchko in the Miami-Dade criminal justice building at 1351 NW 12th Street. The man putting the screws on Scruggs was Michael Tein, the criminal defense lawyer representing Rev. Gaston Smith, who is facing grand theft charge for allegedly stealing $17,000 in county grant money.Tein accuses Scruggs of prosecutorial misconduct in Smith's case.During several hours of testimony this afternoon, Scruggs's answers went from terse to angry. At one point he growled: "Mr. Tein will you calm the rhetoric please."He repeatedly denied he acted with malicious intent when he waited a month to inform Smith and Smith's other criminal defense attorney that a Miami-Dade police detective had secretly recorded two conversations they had with Scruggs and investigators before the clergyman was indicted. Tein zealously quizzed Scruggs if he ever informed Smith that he was a criminal target during the pastor's interviews before he was arrested. "No, no, no, no," Scruggs grumbled. "You got that!"
***
Scruggs disputed comments attributed to him by Miami New Times staff writer Gus Garcia-Roberts in this profile of Smith. He claims he never told Garcia-Roberts Smith had rejected a plea deal in exchange for his testimony against suspended Miami city commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones. (Scruggs is prosecuting her for allegedly stealing $50,000 in county funds.) Scruggs also denied telling Garcia-Roberts that he had reported Smith to the Internal Revenue Service for possible tax evasion. "Absolutely not," Scruggs said under oath. "I don't recall talking about taxes at all."Judge Butchko appeared skeptical. She asked: "So how would the reporter know that if he didn't get it from you? Is the reporter clairvoyant?"Scruggs' reply: "I don't know." He said that alot during his inquisition. And the assistant state attorney conceded that he did tell Garcia-Roberts that Smith "was caught with his hand in the cookie jar." But he claimed it was off the record.Then Scruggs revealed something that just made no sense. When Tein asked him why he didn't complain to New Times editor Chuck Strouse or demand a correction, Scruggs says he decided not to because "no one reads this stuff anyway." Tein: "No one reads the New Times?"Scruggs: "Yeah, Uh-huh."

Apparently, court went until 9:30 Friday night with Tein throwing punch after punch against Scruggs. This trial (preview here by the Miami Herald) should be a fun one to watch.

UPDATE -- here's another New Times article on the hearing, and here is a portion of the transcript including part of Tein's cross of Scruggs and the judge's ruling.

Breaking!!

The case against Ben Kuehne and the co-defendants has been dismissed by the Feds. Happy Thanksgiving.

UPDATE -- The government moved to dismiss the pending appeal against Gloria Velez and also moved to dismiss the entire indictment in the district court against Velez, Oscar Saldarriaga, and Ben Kuehne. The motion simply says that it is based on the changed circumstances from the Court of Appeal's decision and in the interest of justice. Indeed. It was signed by Ken Blanco, Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

UPDATE 2 -- Ben Kuehne issued the following statement:

On this, the day before Thanksgiving, I am gratified beyond measure that the United States Department of Justice has decided to abandon all charges against me. I have had throughout a deep and abiding belief that things would turn out well in the end. However, I did not know the end result would come about by decision of the Department of Justice. We are all fortunate to be able to say that we have a Justice Department whose goal is to try to do the right thing—not to win at all costs.

Although I would have preferred not to go through this experience, I am also gratified that my case has been the occasion for an important precedent-setting legal ruling by the District Court, recently affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and embraced by the legal community, in preserving and protecting the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. This ruling deals with an area of law that is close to my heart. It is to the right to counsel in criminal cases that I have dedicated much of my career at the Bar. I want to, once again, thank the many members of our community who have, over the past two years, so consistently expressed their confidence in my innocence. Throughout this period, I have continued to do what I have been trained to do, and what I love most, which is to practice law. I am grateful to the many clients who have reposed their confidence in me by seeking to utilize my legal services.

I am also grateful to my amazing lawyers, John Nields, Jason Raofield, and Laura Shores from Howrey in Washington, D.C., and my good friend, Jane Moscowitz, from Miami. I wish to thank them for their skill, dedication, and commitment to me and my case.

Finally, throughout this legal drama, my greatest strength has been the unsinkable spirit and love of my wife, Lynn, and our entire family. I want to thank them for knowing who I am, and of my sincere dedication to the law.

Lawyer acquitted in federal court in Georgia

Friends of the blog, Tom Withers* and Craig Gillen, walked a lawyer (Mark Shelnutt) today in Columbus, Ga. Shelnutt was charged with money laundering and drug offenses. The judge read 36 not guilty verdicts:

At 2:45, Land began to read.
“Count One, conspiracy to launder money,” the judge said. “Not guilty.”
“Count Two, aiding and abetting a conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Not guilty.”
“Count Five, money laundering. Not guilty.”
Then the judge’s words, cadence and diction took on a lyrical quality. The chorus, time and again, was “Not guilty.”
Thirty six times Land read a charge and followed it with not guilty.
By the time Land was finished, Shelnutt’s supporters, a combination of family and friends, many of them connected to St. Luke United Methodist Church, were cheering.

I'm sure Ben Kuehne and his legal team have been following the case...

*Tom runs his own blog here.

Judge Cooke affirmed for dismissing count against Ben Kuehne

Great news! Here's the opinion by Judge Barkett.

She starts off discussing the plain language:

Section 1957(a) prohibits knowingly engaging or attempting to engage “in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property that is of a value greater than $10,000 and is derived from specified unlawful activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a). However, the statute exempts “any transaction necessary to preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the Constitution.” 18 U.S.C. § 1957(f)(1). Thus, the plain meaning of the exemption set forth in § 1957(f)(1), when considered in its context, is that transactions involving criminally derived proceeds are exempt from the prohibitions of § 1957(a) when they are for the purpose of securing legal representation to which an accused is entitled under
the Sixth Amendment. Accordingly, the exemption is limited to attorneys’ fees paid for representation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in a criminal proceeding and does not extend to attorneys’ fees paid for other purposes.

Barkett then makes short work of the government's argument:

The Government argues that the exemption in § 1957(f)(1) has been “nullified” or “vitiated” because, shortly after the provision was enacted, the Supreme Court held in Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 626 (1989) that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not protect the right of a criminal defendant to use criminally derived proceeds for legal fees. However, Caplin & Drysdale, which addresses a different statute governing the civil forfeiture of criminally derived proceeds, has no bearing on § 1957(f)(1) and indeed supports the conclusion that such proceeds have been statutorily exempted
from criminal penalties. The Government has pointed to no principle of statutory construction—nor indeed to any legal principle—that supports the conclusion that
a statutory provision may be “nullified” by a Supreme Court decision on a completely different issue, absent any indication that Congress intended such a result.

As Kuehne's legal team has been saying from the start, the government's interpretation yields an absurd result:

As the Government concedes, accepting its interpretation of § 1957(f)(1) would read all meaning out of the exemption. Section 1957 criminalizes only transactions involving criminally derived proceeds. It would therefore make little sense—and would be entirely superfluous—to read § 1957(f)(1) as an exemption from criminal penalties for non-tainted proceeds spent on legal representation, as those funds can always be used for any legal purpose. We do not believe Congress intended such an absurd result, which nullifies the provision and divorces it from its statutory context, thereby violating basic canons of statutory construction.

And congrats to Judge Cooke, who was "eminently correct":

The district court was eminently correct in holding that Defendants are not subject to criminal prosecution under § 1957(a), because the plain language of § 1957(f)(1) clearly exempts criminally derived proceeds used to secure legal representation to which an accused is entitled under the Sixth Amendment.

Now let's see if the government does the right thing and dismiss the rest of the indictment against Ben...

More on Ben Kuehne

This weekend Jay Weaver had an interesting article about the oral argument in Ben Kuehne's case. Background here. Jay asks whether DOJ has targeted Fabio Ochoa's lawyers because they actually had the nerve to go to trial. And Joe DeMaria, the recent quote-master, is at it again:

"This is the Scopes Monkey trial of money laundering cases,'' said former federal prosecutor Joseph DeMaria, referring to the historic 1925 test case in Tennessee over the teaching of evolution in school.**
"If the government wins a conviction against somebody like Ben Kuehne, it will send the defense bar into a deep freeze,'' said DeMaria, who has represented several white-collar defendants in civil forfeiture cases. "This isn't just about drug dealing; it affects the entire spectrum of law enforcement.''

Read the whole article... Good stuff.

Sitting here watching MNF right now. It was a long weekend for Miami sports. Dolphins, Canes, Pennington.... Ugh. At least we got off the board in the blog fantasy league.

**I like how Jay has to explain to the Herald readers what the Scopes Monkey trial is all about...

Blogging the Ben Kuehne argument in the 11th Circuit

I was at the oral argument in the Ben Kuehne case this morning. The issue is whether the exception in section 1957 prevents the government from indicting a criminal defense lawyer for taking payment from a client, previously discussed here. Judge Cooke found that the exception applied and dismissed that count against Ben. The government appealed. To cut to the chase up front, Judge Cooke will be affirmed. Here's what happened:

The panel consisted of Judges Barkett, Hull and Quist. Quist is a district judge from Michigan. The government was represented by Vijay Shanker from DOJ in DC. John Nields represented Ben.

The government started out its argument saying that no case supported the defense. Judge Hull jumped on that statement and said this was a case of first impression -- no case supported the government either. The government conceded that point... not a strong start. It only got worse for the government from there.

Barkett asked whether there was any need for the exception if it applied only to clean money. In other words, a lawyer can take clean money any time, so the exception obviously applied only to tainted funds. The government conceded this point and agreed that the exception concerned illegal money, but countered that only as necessary and guaranteed by the 6th Amendment.

Hull then asked whether this interpretation rendered the exception meaningless AND THE GOVERNMENT LAWYER SAID YES. It is the government's position that the words in 1956 are meaningless. Judges Hull and Barkett stuck on this point for a while... Judge Hull finally said: Listen, we have to give words meaning. Sometimes that hurts criminal defendants, but sometimes it helps.

Barkett then asked what the ordinary meaning of the statute was and the response was: whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Barkett responded: "Oh come on." Judge Quist, who seemed the most friendly to the government then asked whether he was relying on Marbury v. Madison. Answer: Yes.

The tone and atmosphere during the government's initial presentation was very hostile.

Then John Nields got up. He was calm and the tone immediately changed. There was no hostility and he received much fewer questions. The argument started: "I represent Ben Kuehne, a frequent practitioner before this Court and a leader of the Bar." Nields explained that the purpose of the statute was to allow criminal defense lawyers to take cases -- if they were afraid they were going to get indicted, they wouldn't. He explained that the exception only applied to criminal cases, not civil cases and importantly not forfeiture cases.

Quist then asked whether a lawyer could be paid with the proceeds from a bank robbery. Wouldn't that be wrong because the victims wouldn't get paid back? Nields explained, I think to the judges' satisfaction, that he couldn't be prosecuted for accepting the funds, but that they would be forfeited and that the victims would be paid back.

Nields went on to talk about the public policy choices that Congress made, and Judge Hull joked that Congress was probably just concerned with the public fisc -- it didn't want defendants with money to have to rely on public counsel.

DOJ said in rebuttal that there were only 3 cases against lawyers under 1957 and that we should just trust them to do the right thing.

Judge Hull ended the argument by explaining that they have had many Fabio Ochoa cases and knew the backdrop of what was going on. They weren't naive. But, she said, they were dealing with a very specific statute and the government had to understand that. Judge Quist responded: "I am naive."

All in all, I think there is a very strong likelihood -- based on the argument -- that Judge Cooke's decision to dismiss the 1957 count against Ben will be affirmed. This is the right and just result. I obviously am biased in the case as I filed -- along with some great lawyers from WilmerHale in DC who actually wrote it -- an amicus brief in support of Judge Cooke and Ben Kuehne on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

The next argument dealt with the co-defendant, Gloria Flores-Velez, who was represented by Ricardo Bascuas and Henry Bell. The same DOJ lawyer argued for the government. Remember that Judge Cooke dismissed the case against this defendant based on speedy trial grounds. I will post more about it in a bit, but there was a funny moment when Rick was using the term "parallel market" instead of "black market peso exchange." The court asked what the parallel market was, and Rick said it was what the government referred to as the black market exchange. The court asked why the government used that term and Rick said "for its pejorative effect." And the judges and audience laughed. It was a good moment.

UPDATE -- Here's Curt Anderson's AP article. And here's the DBR by John Pacenti.

"This is probably the single most outrageous prosecution that has happened in South Florida."

That's Richard Sharpstein on the Ben Kuehne case, covered by John Pacenti here. The 11th Circuit will have oral argument this Wednesday. Judge Cooke will have Daubert hearings today and tomorrow on the government's proposed currency exchange expert.

John Pacenti also covers the Raffanello case this morning. He's the former DEA agent charged with obstruction. His lawyers had made the gutsy call to request a speedy trial, but have now dropped that motion because the government apparently gave the defense 4 million documents to review. Richard Sharpstein was added to the defense team.

I guess I should have titled the post: Sharpstein and Pacenti.

Let's get ready to rumble

Fascinating lawsuit filed by Joseph DeMaria against DOJ and American Express. Here's the Herald article and the complaint. From the article:

Sergio Masvidal, the successful scion of a once-penniless Cuban exile family, says he just wants the Justice Department to give him back his name.

Masvidal says he also wants his former employer, American Express, to pay him more than $7.5 million for ruining his career as a top global banker based in Miami.

The former chairman of American Express Bank International claims he's a ``scapegoat'' in a lawsuit filed Friday that depicts the Justice Department and his ex-employer as partners in an illegal conspiracy plotted at the same time that American Express was prosecuted for violating anti-money-laundering reporting laws.

``It's important to me that my name is cleared,'' said Masvidal, 63 who came to this country in the early 1960s under the Catholic Church's ``Pedro Pan'' relocation program. ``It's important that I don't end my career with this event defining my life.''

According to the complaint, there was a secret agreement entered into between the government and American Express that sold out Masvidal:

The August 2007 prosecution agreement between American Express Bank International and the Justice Department has caused Masvidal many sleepless nights -- but not because of the costly terms of that deal.
Masvidal has obtained evidence of what he describes as a ``secret termination agreement'' between his ex-employer and the Justice Department. It says that Masvidal and American Express Bank International's president, Simon E. Amich, would be fired after the sale of the bank, implying wrongdoing on their part. The side agreement -- an August 2007 letter signed by American Express and Justice Department lawyers -- was never disclosed to Masvidal, Amich or to U.S. District Judge William Zloch in Fort Lauderdale, who approved the so-called ``deferred'' prosecution agreement.
Under that settlement, American Express had to pay the government $65 million for its lax enforcement of compliance laws aimed at catching drug-trafficking and other tainted bank deposits. It was one of the largest fines imposed on a U.S. bank. Under the terms, the Justice Department filed criminal charges against the bank but agreed to dismiss them in one year if the international bank subsidiary strengthened its safeguards against money laundering.

I notice that John Sellers represented DOJ against American Express; he's the same prosecutor in the Ben Kuehne case.

Back from the West Coast

It was a fun week in San Francisco (I can't believe I missed the Father Cutié drama)...

I see the blog was in good hands while I was away. Rick was great and we hope to have him back on a regular basis.

Just a couple of quick hits before we get going for the week:

-- The Liberty City 6 jury (the latest version of it) will continue deliberating this week. That case is truly jinxed... (In his post on last week's LC6 happenings, Rick missed Mike Tein -- who, of course, is the most quotable lawyer in the District -- from the Blum article: "What a shameful waste of our taxes at the worst possible time. Just think what $10 million could have done for our schoolchildren in Liberty City.")

-- The District now has a Wiki page. It's interesting to look at the historical makeup of the Court. (Some trivia pointed out on the page: "This federal district has the dubious distinction of having had more judges removed through impeachment than any other district, with a total of two, one-third of all federal district judges so removed.")

-- Justice O'Connor had this to say about judicial elections: "They're awful. I hate them." More here.

-- Rick posted on the FIU faculty vote for Dean, and FIU law professor Howard Wasserman has a lot to say about the vote and the coverage here. Howard criticizes the open proceedings and compares it to watching sausages being made. Gotta disagree with Howard here -- we wanna know how sausages are made. Open proceedings are a good thing. Better to have the press in there and reporting (even if the coverage in this case wasn't complete) than the alternative of having the doors closed.

-- Rumpole demonstrates why the Ben Kuehne case needs to be dismissed.

"Much of Brickell Avenue Was Built With Drug Money."

Welcome to Monday, folks -- SFL here, still subbing for the big man.

Remember, no throwing erasures in the classroom!

That great quote above is from Joe DeMaria, weighing in on the black market peso exchange and the government's case against Ben Kuehne:

Kuehne is represented by Miami attorney Jane Moscowitz of Moscowitz & Moscowitz and John Nields of Howrey in Washington. Kuehne has become a cause celebre among peers who see his prosecution as an attempt to chill legal representation for drug traffickers and other high-profile defendants. Kuehne’s clients included Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 presidential recount litigation.

Now his own attorneys are challenging the use of a key government expert, retired DEA agent Donald Semesky, who they say will testify that most of the dollars that Colombians get from the exchange are from narcotics trafficking. “Agent Semesky’s proffered testimony is woefully insufficient” and is intended to fill a gap in evidence, the Feb. 6 defense motion states.

Kuehne argues a federal bankruptcy court in New York recently rejected the government’s characterization of the exchange as utterly corrupt.

DeMaria said it’s disingenuous for prosecutors to denigrate the parallel money market.

“Much of Brickell Avenue was built with drug money. Does that mean you take down all those financial institutions?” he asked. “Sometimes the government has gone too far with the black market peso exchange.”

Take 'em down?

We're probably bailing them out.

More on Kuehne R&R

SFL here, hope you had a nice weekend.

Here's a nice quote from John Pacenti's article on Judge Bandstra's R&R on Ben Kuehne:

If Bandstra’s decision stands, the case would be down to five substantive money laundering counts. Kuehne and Saldarriaga are accused of using a money broker to hide the movement of drug profits into the defense fund. The money broker was an informant working with the government and exchanging pesos for dollars used in U.S. drug stings.

Miami litigator Jane Moscowitz, one of Kuehne’s attorneys, said she was thrilled with the Bandstra ruling.

“It took my breath away that the motion had been granted,” she said.

And us too, Jane.

And here's some more background on the IRS/UBS suit, which is being closely watched in financial and legal circles:

While the deferred prosecution agreement reached between Swiss banking giant UBS and federal prosecutors on Wednesday might have initially looked like a great deal for the government, in reality the Zurich-based bank isn't disclosing nearly as many client names as law enforcement officials are suggesting, says Miller & Chevalier tax partner George Clarke III.

Clarke says that the decision by the Justice Department to file suit against UBS on Thursday in Miami is evidence of this.

Despite forking over $780 million in penalties as part of its deferred prosecution agreement, UBS, represented by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz litigation partner John Savarese, managed to secure a pretty good deal for itself, Clarke says.

Sure, not bad for a bunch of carpetbaggers from New York. But what are we, chopped liver?

Another one bites the dust

The government's case against Ben Kuehne is in utter shambles -- Count I (the most serious count) was already dismissed. The case against a co-defendant has been dismissed. And now, Magistrate Judge Bandstra has recommended that Count 7 -- the wire fraud count -- be dismissed against all defendants. It is time for the government to concede defeat, no?

Breaking -- Judge Cooke dismisses case against Ben Kuehne's co-defendant for Speedy Trial violation

In a 13-page Order, Judge Cooke has dismissed the case against Gloria Florez Velez, the lead defendant in the Ben Kuehne case for a violation of her speedy trial rights. Henry Bell represents Ms. Velez. More to follow...

Govt appeals order in Ben Kuehne case

Here's the text of the notice:

Notice is hereby given that the United States of America, plaintiff/appellant in the
above-captioned case, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731 and Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(B)(i), hereby
appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the Order Granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One of the Third Superseding Indictment (Docket Entry
192) entered in the above entitled matter on December 22, 2008.
DATED this 7th day of January, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
MATTHEW W. FRIEDRICH
ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

PAUL O'BRIEN, CHIEF
Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section
Robert Feitel
United States Department of Justice
Criminal Division Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section

I wonder why this was filed so quickly, and why they didn't wait until after President-Elect Obama became President. The case likely will now be placed on hold for a while during the appeal.

Monday news and notes

Ahhhh, Monday morning after a holiday weekend. So much fun. Here's what's happening:

1. Pharmed sentencing today. (via Sun-Sentinel & Herald) Here are the letters in support of leniency, the government's sentencing memo, and the defense sentencing memo. Quick summary: government says the guidelines are appropriate; defense says they are too high.

2. The Chief Justice released his year end report. Quick summary: judges need more money.

3. More on Ben Kuehne. (via DBR). Quick summary: the case against him sucks.

4. Medicare fugitives. (via Herald). Quick summary: every now and then, people flee as they did in this case.

Dead Friday

Anyone working today?

Back to regular blogging on Monday.

2009 should be exciting -- trial #3 of Liberty City 7, trial #2 of Joe Cool, trial (or dismissal) of the Ben Kuehne case, Dolphin playoffs, and possibly 2 new district judges in the SDFLA because of judges taking senior status. What else?

Have a nice long weekend.

Judge Cooke grants Ben Kuehne's motion to dismiss Count 1

FOR THOSE OF YOU LOOKING FOR THE POST ABOUT THE APPELLATE ARGUMENT, CLICK HERE. (The WSJ Blog and others have mistakenly linked to this old post).

Huge news during this holiday week. Big props to Judge Cooke for doing the right thing and for authoring a beautifully written 13-page order. I earlier had covered the oral argument of the motion hearing here. The issue as I explained then was:

The issue on Count I is whether an attorney (Ben Kuehne) can be prosecuted under 1957 for receiving legal fees in light of 1957(f)(1)'s exception for "transaction[s] necessary to preserve a person's right to representation as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution."

Judge Cooke found that Ben Kuehne could not be prosecuted because the funds were for legitimate legal services:

The Indictment states that the Defendants, including Velez and Saldarriaga conducted or caused to be conducted a wire transfer to the Ochoa criminal defense team immediately after each of the first four Opinion Letters. Indictment, ¶9. The purpose and object of the conspiracy in Count One was for the purpose of paying legal fees. Indictment, ¶38. Only fees for legitimate legal services are alleged in Count One. The language in the exemption does not require that he transactions involve only the client and the attorney. The statute exempts “any transaction.”

Judge Cooke makes clear that her Order does not provide blanket protection for money laundering by lawyers:

The dismissal of Count One of the Indictment does not prevent the Government from properly prosecuting attorneys for money laundering related crimes, nor does it totally negate criminal liability for an individual who may conspire to launder tainted funds to pay legal fees. The government’s concern that application of the § 1957 exemption would hinder or bar prosecution of anyone who had contact with tainted funds that were eventually used to pay criminal defense fees is unfounded. The Indictment, in Counts 2 through 6, also charges Defendants under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 with money laundering concealment conspiracy and
concealment money laundering. There is no exemption contained in § 1956 for transactions ecessary to preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. None of these Defendants have moved to dismiss Counts 2 through 6. For good reason. Accepting the allegations in the Indictment as true, as required at this juncture, the crimes are appropriately plead and any further determination of the charges should be made on a Rule 29 motion.

This is a huge and well-deserved victory for Ben. Congrats. There are still a number of counts left in the indictment, but the government's case is more in tatters right now. It should seriously consider dismissing the entire indictment at this point and moving on. (And yes, I am biased both because I am friends with Ben and because I am co-counsel for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers who filed a brief in support of this motion).

Breaking!

Judge Cooke granted Ben Kuehne's motion to dismiss Count 1. More to follow soon.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Ben Kuehne Motions Hearing before Judge Cooke

On behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, I attended the hearing before Judge Cooke today dealing with the motion to dismiss Count I of the indictment, the conspiracy to violate the "criminally derived property" statute, 18 U.S.C. section 1957. Here's a brief synopsis of what occurred (and yes, I am obviously biased as NACDL filed a brief in support of the motion to dismiss).


The issue on Count I is whether an attorney (Ben Kuehne) can be prosecuted under 1957 for receiving legal fees in light of 1957(f)(1)'s exception for "transaction[s] necessary to preserve a person's right to representation as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution."

Judge Cooke started the hearing by asking the prosecutor to present his argument on the defense motion to dismiss because she wanted to know if he was really taking the position that 1957(f) was meaningless. The prosecutor answered YES! The prosecutor took the position that as a matter of law the motion should be denied because 1957(f) does not afford any protection to lawyers. He then argued that as a matter of fact, Kuehne's actions were not "necessary" to represent Ochoa and therefore not covered by the statute. And finally, he argued that if the judge disagreed with 1 & 2, she should at least present the question to a jury because 1956(f) is an affirmative defense.


John Nields then argued for Ben Kuehne. Nields argued that the statutory text is clear and that it must have meaning. He explained that the government could forfeit an attorney's fee if it was tainted, but it could not prosecute him under 1957. Judge Cooke asked what would happen if a defense lawyer participated in a drug transaction and then took a fee to represent the drug dealer. Nields argued that the defense lawyer could be prosecuted for lots of things under that hypo, but not 1957.

Judge Cooke questioned both the prosecution and the defense about the bright-line rule they were proposing. She tested the government theory that 1957(f) offers no protection vs. the defense's position that it affords an attorney absolute protection in a criminal case under 1957 for receiving a legal fee (it does not, for example, protect against forfeiture or a prosecution under a different statute).

Ultimately, the defense position is much more persuasive. Section 1957(f) cannot be meaningless as the prosecution suggests. The prosecution's reading of the statute is an assault on the Sixth Amendment, an assault on criminal defendants, and an assault on criminal defense lawyers. It seeks to chill lawyers from taking legal fees in criminal cases. The prosecution's arguments that (1) it will only prosecute the egregious cases and (2) if it doesn't, a jury will protect the defense bar, offers no comfort. Criminal defense lawyers will be chilled into refusing any fee for the fear of prosecution itself, even if they would likely be acquitted. Kuehne's reputation and standing in the community has suffered by the mere prosecution. He has had to raise money for the defense. He has been indicted in a serious federal case. Criminal defense lawyers shouldn't have to rely on the good graces of the government or a jury to make the right decision because Congress has spoken very clearly on this issue -- defense lawyers shall not be prosecuted for accepting a legal fee. Period.

Roy Black's firm did more in this case to vet the fee than any case in the history of the law -- it spent over $200,000 because it wanted to make sure that it was doing everything correctly. And Black hired the most ethical lawyer in the community to do the vetting, Ben Kuehne.

Count I should be dismissed.

There were lots of other motions being argued, but this is the one of most interest. I hope this post generates some discussion.

A few news and notes

1. Ben Kuehne's motions hearing is this afternoon at 1:30.

2. The Pine Crest swim coach didn't get bond.

3. A federal agent was indicted for taking kickbacks.

4. Drew Brees won me my fantasy football game last night and looks like he is going to break Dan Marino's record. He does have a pretty tough schedule the rest of the way though.

5. Dancing with the Stars has jumped the shark.