I

2

3

5

6

7

8

I

10

l t

t2

.tJ

14

1 5

l6

1 7

1 8

l9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COIJ-RT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

PIaintiff, No. CR 05-0381 TSZ

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

NEW TRIAL (F.R.Cr.P. 33)

AKRAM ASWAD ALMUSSA and

JOSHUA KEBEDE, Note For Motion Calendar:

29, 2006

Defendants,

l. Relief Reouested. Defendant moves the Court for an order granting a new

trial on the basis that substantial justice was not achieved at the first trial.

2. Statement of F acts.

A. lYrongful Withholding of Material Exculpatory Evidence

Defendant n'ent to trial on November 22, 2006 alter having his motion for a

continuance denied. The Government had failed to reveal to the defense that it

had located a missing witness, Matthew Mcchee and that the interviey/ ofhim

had disclosed material excutpatory evidence tending to disprove two ofthe five

elements of the offense of wire fraud and conspiracy. Six business days before the

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

A NEW TRIAL (RULE 33) . 1 RoBERT .J. WAYNE. P s

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 1 of 18
I

3

4

5

6

7

8

I

10

l l

12

13

14

1 5

16

1 7

l 8

l 9

20

21

22

24

25

26

27

28

start of trial, during the time reserved for final preparation of trial documents

due on November 20, 2006 and the preparation ofwitness examinations, the

Government provided a copy ofthe report ofthe investigation, buried wrthin a

thick stack ofdocuments. During October and November, the prosecutron had

sent three letters to the defense discussing and disclosing discovery. Throughout

that period the Govemment was aware ofthe McGhee exculpatory evidence and

failed to disclose it. None of the three letters mentioned Mr. McGhee. The

letters have all been previously supplied to the Court.

The Court indicatcd to the Government that this conduct was beneath the

requirement ofBrody and chided the Assistant United States Attorney. Despite

the warning, the Government continued to withhold information regarding

Mr. McGhee for apparent strategic reasons. The Government did not want to ca 

Mr. Mcchee, despite having had a multi-hour proffer from him durins the

weekend between the first and second week,s of trial. During that interview, the

Government learned that he had been discharged from one ofhis earlier iobs

because of an accusation of sexual misconduct with an employee. The

Government obtained police reports and a letter from the lawyer for Mr. McGhee

in which certain admissions were made. It is apparent from the fax header on the

letter lhat the Government had possession of ihe documents during the evening

of December 4, 2006. The Government waited until after the defense had called

Mr. McGhee as a witness late in the day on December 6, 2006 and had spent the

last 30 minutes of that day on direct. The information was not provided until the

DDFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

A NEW TRIAL (RULE 33) 2 ROBERT J. WAYNE. PS

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 2 of 18
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

l l

t2

l3

14

15

16

17

l8

l 9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

following morning. By then it was too late for the defense to undo the calling of

the \Mitness. The defense was forced on Wednesday to make a decision to call the

witness without having the full information known to the Government. The

defense had asked the Court on Wednesday, December 6, 2006 for permission to

call it's last witness on Thursday morning, rather than having to make the

decision with only 30 minutes left on Wednesday. The Court denied that request.

The defense obtained the names of four potential supportiye witnesses

from Mr. McGhees' lawyer during the late alternoon of December 6, 2006 and

did not have an opportunity to interview them before having to make the decision

about calling Mr. McGhee to the stand. This was not enough time to make

ellective use of the Brady informstion regarding Mr. McGhee. The del.ense

timely sought continuances both at the start of the proceedings and before havine

to call the witness. These requests for relief were both denied.

While the Court has denied the defense motions to dismiss fo t lhe Bratt^l

violation and has declined to exercise it's supervisory powers to dismiss the case

for the violations ofthe ethical and legal requirements placed upon the

Government and it's lawyers, it is submitted that due process requires that the

wrongful consequences, namely a conviction contributed to by such wroneful

conduct, be undone and that Mr. Almussa be granted a new trial.

B. Misconduct in the presentation of Evidence

The Rules of Professional Conduct require that lawyers proceed with

candor to the tribunal before which they practice. No lawyer is allowed to

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FoN

A NEW TRIAL (RIJLE 33) .3 ROBERT J. WAYNE. P.S

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 3 of 18
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I

10

l 1

t2

l 3

1 4

l 5

16

1 7

1 8

1 9

20

21

22

24

25

26

27

2B

wilfully present perjured evidence and lawyers for the Government are under a

partisular requirement to do justice eyen if it means that the accused will go free.

In this case the Government clearly pres€nted pedured testirnony by Mr. Kebede

which was designed to put him in a false light that would increase his credibility

artd make him sympathetic to the jury.

The direct of Mr. Kebede by the AUSA left the following impressions:

1. Mr. Kebede had only been involved in one previous deal before

meeting Mr, Almussa.

2. That previous dealing had resulted in no financial sain to

Mr. Kebede.

3. Mr. Kebede was best characterized as an ice cream seller with an

interest in real estate at the time he met Mr. Almussa.

4. Mr. Kebede first learned about double closings from Mr. Almussa,

having never been involved in a double closing before.

5. Mr. Kebede stopped dealing with Mark Koshraw before he met

Mr. Almussa, because Mr. Koshraw had cheated him out of his share

of that one prior dealing.

6. Mr. Alrnussa came up with the idea of having false verifications of

emplol'rnent for falsejob titles.

None of the above was true. yet when the prosecutor finished his direct

examination that was the image he had given the jury through careful and

detailed questioning ofMr. Kebede. While the prosecutor offers an excuse based

DDFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

A NEW TRIAI, (RIILE 33) 4 ROBERT J. WAYNE. PS,

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 4 of 18
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

R

I

10

l l

12

13

14

l 5

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

upon a pre-trial order, that order only dealt with certain prior transactions; not

the mJrriad of other false poses recited above. What's more, that pre_trial order

did not give the Government license to paint wiih half-truths and mislead the

;;.;;:;;=;"

To put this in context, the Government had long been aware that Mr.

Kebede had actively suborned perjury and was ofdoubtful character. That

should have put the Government on special alert to be careful with the wrtness.

Having solicited the testimony that created this false image, the Government had

a duty to correct it; not leave it to the defense to attempt to counter on cross

examination. No one can say with confidence that the efforts of the defense made

up for this elaborate disguising of Mr. Kebede. Cloaked in false colors, the trial

was stained by the lies ofthis man, solicited through the careful guidance ofan

experienced prosecutor. The Government has come away with a conviction at the

expens€ of the appearance of fairness.

While the Court may well have concluded that the Governmental

misconduct did notjustifu dismissat, it should not permit the conviction ofAkram

Almussa to rest on a performalce such as this. No one can say that the Jury was

unaffected by the testimony of Mr. Kebede.

Even after ihis Court rebuked the prosecution for its conduct, it happened

again. In the testimony of Nancy Lalander the Government solicited tesrrmony

as follows:

DEITNDANT'S MOTION T'OR

ANEW TRIAI, (RIJLE 33) 5 ROBERT J. WAYNE. P5

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 5 of 18
1

2

3

5

6

7

8

I

10

I I

12

I J

14

1 5

16

t l

l 8

1 9

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

1. Ms. Lalander met Mr. Almussa on two occasions.

2. On the frrst occasion Mr. Almussa interviewed her and obtained

financial information that included her income and olace of

employment.

3. On the second occasion she was asked to sign various loan

documents by Mr. Almussa.

This story was not true and the attorneys for the Government knew it.

The unequivocal stat€ment reported in the FBI investigatory report was that Ms.

Lalander rnet Mr. Almussa on only one occasion for the purpose ofsigning

documents, not supplying information. It was Mr. Kebede who met and

interviewed her initially, not Al<ram Almussa. The lawyers for the Government

knew this because they had that report. But, when false information was given,

the lawyers for the Government, let it stand and did nothing to correct it.

If the transcript were available there would be other examples. For

instance, the Government had Ms. Estes testify that Mr. Almussa interviewed

her and obtained financial information on a draft Uniform Residential Loan

Application (HUD form 1003). In fact Defendant's Exhibit 42 demonstrated that

she filled out one of ihe 1003s that Mr. Kebede was handing out (the form that

Mr. Khosraw had supplied that said Premiere Mortgage) and had faxed it back to

Mr. Kebede.

Ms. Raquel Sahagun was put on to testiry that she directly supplied

financial information io Mr. Almussa. The Government had interviewed Ms.

DDFENDAN?'S MOTION FOR

A NEW TRIAI, (RIJ'I,E 33) 6

ROBERT..J. WAYNE. P.S.

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 6 of 18
2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

l 1

12

I J

14

1 5

16

t7

l 8

19

20

21

22

23

25

26

27

Sahagun and Mr. Gonzalez. It turned out that the form was filled out bv

Mr. Gonzalez while sitting with Ms. Sahagun; not by Mr. Almussa.

This was a trial peopled by perjurers, zuborner's ofpedury ald straw

buyers each of whom had greater interest in avoiding prosecution. A criminal

conviction should not be an opportunity to lead such a parade rMithout exercising

the utmost care to insure that justice is not compromised. The attorneys for the

Government showed little concern for such niceties and the result is one in which

no one should be proud to have been a participant. It would be a black rnark on

justice to allow a conviction in zuch a trial to stand.

3. Statement of Issues. Should the Court permit the conviction of Akram

Almussa in a case replete with instances of perjury and in which the

Government introduced evidence that it knew to be false and failed to

correct that evidence?

4. Evidence Relied Urnn. The defense relies upon the transcript of the

t€stimony and the declaration of Robert J. Wayne filed in zupport of this motion.

5. Authority.

As outlined above the Government presented the testimony ofwitnesses in

such a manner as to put the key Governmental witness, Joshua Kebede, in a false

and more s5rmpathetic light. Having solicited testimony that it knew to be false,

the Government failed to correct it and even atiempt€d on re-direct to reemphasize and re-establish the ass€rtion that Mr. Kebede had first learned about

double closings from Mr. Almussa. Despite ajudicial rebuke for this conduct, the

DEMNDANT'S MOTION FOR

A NEW TRIAI, (RIJ'I,E 33) 7

ROBERT.J. WAYNE. P.S

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 7 of 18
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

I

10

l l

12

13

14

1 5

16

1 7

l 8

1 9

20

21

22

24

25

26

27

28

Government again failed to correct false testimony presented by Ms. Lelander

that she had provided frnancial information directly to Mr. Almussa, when in fact

the Government knew that the information had been given to Mr. Kebede.

Numerous other instances of false testimony dot the transcripts of the testimony

of Ms. Sahagun, Ms. Estes, Mr. Gonzalez and others called by the Government.

There are two precedents that are of the grcatest importance here. The

first is Napue u. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 79 S.Ct. 1l?3, 3 L.Ed.2d 12r7 (1959)

and the second is the Ninth Circuit's en banc ruling last year in Hayes u. Brown,

399 F.8d 972 (2005) (en banc).

The rule in Nopae is that a conviction based in part on false testimony that

is uncorrected by the Government cannot stand ifthe testimony is at all material.

Mr. Kebede's testimony went to the heart ofthe Government's case, describing

the manner and means of both ihe conspiracy alleged in Count I and the scheme

alleged in all the remaining counts. The defense called this to th€ attention of the

Court in a timely manner and moved at the end ofthe case for the harshest

remedy, dismissal of the indictment. The Court did not grant that motion, as

motions for dismissal arc disfavored in the law. That does not end the inquiry.

N@p4€ and its progeny stand for the proposition thai a criminal conviction cannot

rest on the uncertainty ofjustice created by the introduction of suc9h evidence.

The case also represents the intention ofthe High Court to create a masslve

deterrent to Governmental misconduct, consistent with the continued ability to

mount a proper prosecution of the accused.

DEIENDANT'S MOTION T'OR

A NEW TRIAL (RTJ'I,D 33) .8 ROBERT J. WAYNE. P.S

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 8 of 18
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I

10

l 1

12

1 3

14

l 5

l 6

1 7

1 8

19

20

22

24

25

26

27

2a

A conviction obtained by the introduction of pe{urerl testimony

violates due process if (1) the prosecution knowingly solicited the

pe4ured testimony or (2) the prosecution failed to correct

testimony it hew was perjured. Nop ue u. Illinois, A60 U.S. 264,

269, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d f217 (1959). "A 

new trial is required if

Lhe false testimony could in any reasonable likelihood have ajlected the

judgment of the jury;'Giglio u. United. States,405 U.S. 1S0. 154.92

S.Ci. 763, 31 L.Ed.zd lO4 (1972) (quoting Nopze, 360 U.S. at 271, ?9

S.Ct. 1173) (internal quotes and alterations omitted).

United. States u. Vaziri,164 F.3d 556, 563 ( l0th Cir. l999)(emphasis added).

The failure bo correct false testimony i6 a wrong in itself. It would be too easy

for the prosecutor to hide behind the notion of surprise at hearing testimony from

the witness that he knows to be false. Rather than countenance a position of

surprised observer, the Nghest court in the land made it clear that the prosecutor

has a duty to correct the testimony; not rely upon the att€mpts of the defense to do

so later, or the contradiction by other evidence. When the fals€ testimony emerges

a pros€cutor cannotjust look the othelway and move on. It is submitted that in this

case the Government's actions were far wors€ than simply looking the other rvay in

regad to Mr. Kebede. With that witness the prosecutor wove the fabric ofthe very

deceit, having Mr. Kebede testify that he had been in but one earlier transaction and

in that, he had received nothing ofvalue.'

I The prosecutor made the argument that he was precluded frorn

mentioning any previous transactions by virtue of a pre-trial order. That

argument is disingenuous on its face given: a) the AUSA had the witness testiry

about a previous tralsaction (Carole King), the one in which he claimed to have

been cheat€d by Mr. Khosraw; and b) the limitation was in the context of

prevrous transactions involving Mr. Almussa, not Mr. Kebede. If that was truly

the belief of the Government, than it would not have introduced the ,,I was

cheated" transaction as a prelude to it's evidence against Mr. Almussa by Mr.

(continued...)

DEFDNDANT'S MOTION FOR

ANDW TRIAL {RIJLE 33) 9

ROBERTJ WAYNE. P S

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 9 of 18
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I

10

I I

12

l 3

1,4

15

16

17

l 8

19

20

21

22

26

27

28

As long ago as Moon ey u. Ilolohan ,294 U.S. 103, I 12 ( 1935), this

Court made clear that deliberate deception of a court and jurors by the

presentation of known false evidence is incompatible with

"rudimentary demands of justice." This was realfrrmed it PyLe u,

Konsos, 317 U.S. 213 (1942). In Napue u. lllinois,36O U.S. 264 (1959),

we said, "the same nesult obtains when the State, although not

soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorr€cted when it

appear€." 1d., at 269. 'fhercaftr.lt Brody u. Maryland,373 V.5., at 87 ,

held that suppression of material evidence justifies a new trial "irrespectiye of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." See

Americar Bar Association, Project on Standalds for Criminal Justice,

Prosecution Function and the Defense Function S 3.ll (a). When the "reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or

innocence," nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within

this general rule. Nopue, supra, et 269.. . . A new trial is required if

"the false testimony could . . . in any reasonable likelihood have

affected the judgment of the jury . . . ." Napue, supra, at 271.

Giglio u. United. States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-54, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972)

(emphasis added).

The test is whether the conduct ofthe Drosecution is such as to undermine

confidence in the outcome ofthe trial. United States. u. Bagley,473 U.S.667,682

( 1985 ).

Last year the Ninth Circuit en banc underbook the revie\a' of a habeas

petition in which the petitioner had been convicted of murder. In that case the

state of California had procured the testimony of a pnssible co-participant

tbrough an arrangement that involved transactional immunity and dismissal of

other charges. Realizing that such a deal would compmmise the credibility ofthe

witness, the prosecutor had a clever idea. He made the deal with defense counsel

'(...continued)

Kebede. Certainly, it does not provide license to create a false and misleading

impression of Mr. Kebede to heighten his credibility before the jury.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

A NEW TRIAL (RIJ-LE 33) IO ROBERT J WAYNE. P,S

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 10 of 18
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

at

I

10

l l

t2

13

14

l 5

t 6

1 7

1 8

19

20

27

22

23

25

26

2a

with the promise that the defense lawyer would not reveal the existence ofthe

deal to his client, the pot€ntial witness. Thus, the witne&s would not be engaging

in perjury in denying that he n'as tesfirying because he had a deal to protect

himself; he would be unaware of the deal and lack the m€ns rea of pe{ury. At the

same time his value as a witness would not be compromised. The Ninth Circuit

ganted lr@6eos reliefand vacated the judgment ofconviction.

The Supreme Court has long emphasized "the special role played by

the Americal prosecutor in the search for truth in criminal trials."

Strickler u. Greene,527 U.S. 263,281, 144 L. Ed. 2d 286, 119 S. Ct.

1936 (1999). As we observed in Commtnwealth of The Northern

Mariana lslands u. Mendiola,976 F2d 475,486 (9th Cir. 1992)

(citations omitted), orern led. on other ground.s bX Gmrge u. Cam.acho,

119 F.8d 1393 (gth Cir. 1997) (en banc):

The prosecuting attorney represents a sovereign whose

obligation is to govern impartially and whose interest in

a psrticular case is not necessarily to win, but to do

justice. . . . It is the sworn duty of the prosecutor to

assure that the defendant has a fair and impartial trial.

One ofthe bedrock principles ofour democracy, "implicit in any

concept ofordered liberty," is that the State may not use false evidence

to obtain a criminal conviction. Nopre u. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264,269,3

L. Ed. 2d 1217, 79 S. Ct. 1173 (1959) (internal citation omitted).

Deliberate deception of a judge and jury is "inconsistent with the

rudimentarJr demands ofjustice." Mooney v, Holohan,294 U.S, 103,

LL2, 79 L. Ed. 791, 55 S. Ct. 340 (1935). Thus, "a conviction

obtained through use of false evidence, hrcwn to be auch by

representstives of the State, must fall urder the Fourteenth

Amendment." Napae, 360 U.S. at 269 (citations omitt€d). "Indeed, if

it is established tlnt the govenrment howingly permitted the

i[troduction of fale€ teetimony reversal is ,virtually

automatic."' United. States u. Walloah,g35 F.2d 445, 456 (2d Qir.

l99l\ (quoting united. stdtes u. stofshy, 527 F.2d 237,243 (2d Cir.

1975)).

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

A NEW TRIAL (RIJLE $) 1T ROBERT J. WAYNE. P.si.

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 11 of 18
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I

10

l l

12

13

74

15

l6

1 7

1 8

l9

20

21

22

23

26

27

2A

In adilitioD, the state Yiolates a criminal defendart's

right to due procees of law when, although not soliciting false

evldence, it allows false evidence to go uncorrected when it

aweslrs. See Naorlau. ?etos, 355 U.S 28, 2 L' Ed 2d 9' 78.s -Ct 103

66sl); pyt" u. K&nsas,317 U.S. 213, 87 L' Ed' 214,63 S' ct' 177

(L942\.

Hayes u. Brown,399 F.3d 9?2 (2005) (en banc) (emphasis added)'

It is all too easy to underplay the misconduct here by saying that the crossexamination undid the harm. Such a conclusion would require the Court to

second guess the mental processes of twelve independent jurors The perception

of the creclibility of defense counsel in their minds is not known A skillful and

articulate prosecutor had stood before them and urgd testimony Even after

soliciting the mis-information, that prosecutorepeat'dly argued to the Court

that what he had clone was somehow proper because of a pre-trial ruling' The

jurors, who did not hear that argument, nevertheless saw a prosecutor who was

never rebuked before them for the misconduct and whose true-believer

conhdence never waned. They may have chos€n to believe that the crossexamination was so much smoke and mirrors and that the witness, Mr' Kebede,

had truly learned double closings from the accused and accepted the bslance of

his testimony. Indeed, on re-direct the prosecutor again questioned the witness

about learning his craft from Mr. Almussa and had him repeat his assertion'

Thus, it would be hubris on the part of the undersigned to suggest that crosseramination undid all the damage and established the truth lt would be wishful

thinking on the part ofanyone else to say that there was not "any reasonable

DEFENDANT'S MOTTON FOR

A NEW TR]A]- (RIJLE 33) T2

ROBERT J. WAYNE. P S

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 12 of 18
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I

1 0

t 1

12

1 3

14

15

l6

1 7

1 8

19

20

22

23

24

25

26

27

2A

likelihood" thai the false testimony "could have affected thejudgment ofthe

jury."2 Hales, supra at 988.

Under the test of'could have affected" the inquiry is one ofpotential

ellects. If the jury devalued the cross exarnination or considered it collateral to

the issues than thejury might well have continued to believe in Mr. Kebede, who

stood to lose his plea bargain if his testimony was not honest. What did the jury

actually believe? We will never know. But, the question of whether the jury

could have believed in evidence that allected theirjudgment deserves to be

answered in the affirmative.

There are two additional considerations to be taken into account. In

closing argument defense counsel told thejury ihat the knowing solicitation of

false testimony "cast doubt" over the entire prosecution.r' However, if the

Government had followed it's ethical and legal obligations to correct the evidence,

the force of the defense argument would have been infinitely stronger. The effect

In assessing materiality under Nopue, we determine whether there is "'any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected

the judgment of the jury;"' if so, then "the conviction must be set

aside." Belmontes o. Woodford,,350 F.3d 861, 881 (gth Cir. 2003)

@uoting United. Stotes u. Agurs, 427 U.S. g7, tO3' 49 L. F"d. 2d 842,96

s. ct. 2392 0976)).

Hayes, supra at 984. Ttris standard does not require t}le Court io determine that the

testimony actually did alTect the jury; rather the inquiry is whether it had the

potential to do so, in other words that it "could" have done so.

' The Court had just instructed the jury that the comments of counsel

are noi evidence and are meant only to help interpret the evidence.

DDFDNDANT'S MOTION FOR

A NEW TRIAI (RIJ'LE $) . T3 RoBERT J, WAYNE. P.S.

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 13 of 18
I

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

t 1

t2

l 3

1 4

1 5

16

1 7

l 8

19

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

2a

of such a correction ofa witness' false testimony was noted by the en banc Circuit

Court in l{oyes.

The violation of the State's independent duty under Alcoto and

Pyle was alw material, perhaps even more so. To avoid violating

Hayes's due process rights by allowing false evidence to go uncorrected,

the State would have been forced to disclose to the jury aJte.

James testified that James's testimony concerning the lack of a deal

was false; that a secret deal was in place concerning pmsecution for the

other crimes; and that the State had solicited.tamea'E testimony

to the contranr howing that he would b€ providing false

evidence. Such a disclosure would have had a devastating

effect on the cr€dibility of the entire pmsecution caae.

Hayes at988. The defense in this case was denied the ability to do so with any

apparent effect on the outcome.

Finally, a basis for imposing the remedy ofa new trial is not only to insure

that this verdict does not rest upon perjured testimony, but also to create a real

deterrent to prosecutorial misconduct in the solicitation of false evidence. That

gosl has yet to be achieved in this case. Consider that on the threshold of

starting this trial, the Court was confronted with the suppression ofBrody

information concerning Mr. McGhee until six business days before the trial. The

Court also took under zubmission a defense motion to dismiss for the violation

and verbally admonished the prosecutor. The Court was clearly trying to send a

message to the prosecution that they were too close to an ethical line and that

they had better steer clear. That point was either lost on the U.S. Attorney's

Office or isnored.

DEIENDANT'S MOTION FOR

A NEW TRIAL (RULE 33) 14 ROBERT J. WAYNE. PS.

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 14 of 18
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

t 1

t2

t3

14

1 5

16

1 7

r8

l9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2A

Before the C,ourt had even ruled on the Brady issue, the prosecutor was off

soliciting the false testimony of Mr. Kebede. Again the Court was unequivocal in

it's condemnation of this behavior, telling the prosecutor that this was not fair

advocacy at all and that it was far short ofthe lo{ty goals ofa fair trial. But, even

alter receiving that rebuke, there was a repeat of this behavior in the re-direct

examination and a variance on the pattern in the examination of Ms. Lalander,

with the uncorrected erfor in regard to the recipient of the frnancial information

at the first meeting.

If deterrence matters, than the Court's goal was not attained. Two

prosecutors have now learned how much they can get away with without

nepercussions, The fairness of the product of two weeks of trial before a federal

court stands in grave question and no lasting lesson has been drawn. The

prosecution should not be allowed to thwart justice. The defendaat should not be

the one to lament at length the abridgment of proper and ethical conduct. This

Court should order a new trial so that any conviction is one that follows from an

lesitimate record.

Mr. McGhee aud the Late Disclosure of Brady and Impeachment

Evidence,

As noted above, the defense sought a continuance before the start ofthe

trial so as to be able to make an efflcient use ofthe late disclosed information

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

A NEW TRIAL (RIJLE 33) 15 ROBERT J. WAYNE. PS

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 15 of 18
1

z

3

6

7

8

I

l0

1 t

12

13

14

1 5

16

1 7

1 8

19

20

27

22

24

25

26

27

regarding Mr. Mcchee. That \yould have permitt€d an investigation into his

alleged supporting witnesses.

That was followed up by the denial ofa thirty ninute delay in offering

Mr. McGhee's testimony. The defendant was put into the position of having to

call his last witness, Mr. McGhee, at the end of the day on Wednesday before he

was able to conduct the investigation ofthe possible zupporting witnesses, whose

names had just been provided, The defens€ wa6 forced to commit to a course of

testimony that may have proven fatal to it's position.

Unknorvr to the defense, the Government had obtained police reports and

a letter regarding Mr. Mcchee. Despite repeated wamings to the Government

lawyers about late disclosure of information, the Government withheld that

information until the following morning, after Mr. Mcchee had taken the stand.

Under these circumstances, the importance ofthat 30 minute delay became all

the more sigtrificant. It is submitted that the cumulative elTe€t of the rulings

concerning Mr. McGhee had the effect of prejudicing the defense of Mr. Almussa

and necessitate a new trial.

CONCLUSION

If deterrence is a goal in order to protect the int€grity of the Court, then it

has not been achieved. A criminal conviction should not be allowed to rest on a

record zuch as this. But, moreover. the Court should not let this case be a model

ofhow much can be tolerated and still sustain a verdict that will forever change

the course of this man's life; his liberty, his integrity and his ability to remain in

DEFDNDANT'S MOTION FOR

A NDW TRIAL (RULE 33} 16 ROBERT .J. WAYNE. P S.

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 16 of 18
6

7

8

I

l0

1 l

t2

13

t4

l5

16

17

18

t9

20

2l

n

25

26

27

2

3

this country with his wife and child. It is one thing to witness the conduct that

went on during the trial; it is another to sanction it.

Dated tNs l6th day of December, 2006.

ROBERT J. WAYNE, P.S.

For Defendant, Akram Almussa

wsBA # 6131

DEFDNDANT'S MOTION FOR

A NEIV TRIAL (RIJLE 33) -17 ROSERT J. WAYNE, PS.

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 17 of 18
I

2

4

t

7

I

I

l0

l 1

t2

l3

t4

l5

t6

t7

l8

l9

20

2l

22

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERI/ICE

The undersigned certifres that a copy ofthis document and the Declaration

of Robert J. Wayne in support of the motion for a new trial were sewed upon

counsel ofrecord at their E-nail addresses via the ECF system in place in the

Western District ofwashington, on this 16th day ofDecember, 2006.

Dated this 16th tlay of December, 2006 at Seattle, WA

/s/ Robert J. Wayne

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

ANEWTRIAL GIJLB3:}), T8 ROEERT J. WAYNE. P5,

Case 2:05-cr-00381-TSZ Document 163 Filed 12/16/06 Page 18 of 18