1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

-vsRAKIM ASAD, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 17 CR 40

Chicago, Illinois

January 19, 2022

1:30 p.m.

TELEPHONIC TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN J. THARP, JR.

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

BY: MS. SHERI L. WONG

MR. PAUL JOSEPH MOWER

219 S. Dearborn Street

5th Floor

Chicago, IL 60604

For Defendant

Rakim Asad: LAW OFFICES OF ANDREA E. GAMBINO

BY: MS. ANDREA ELIZABETH GAMBINO

53 W. Jackson Boulevard

Suite 1332

Chicago, IL 60604

For Defendant

Akeem Asad: MS. BLAIRE C. DALTON

53 W. Jackson Boulevard

Suite 1523

Chicago, IL 60604

Court Reporter: KELLY M. FITZGERALD, CSR, RMR, CRR

Official Court Reporter

United States District Court

219 South Dearborn Street, Room 1420

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: (312) 818-6626

kmftranscripts@gmail.com

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 1 of 47 PageID #:1737
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

APPEARANCES: (Continued)

For Defendant

Mardi Lane: LAW OFFICES OF ELLEN R. DOMPH

BY: MS. ELLEN R. DOMPH

53 W. Jackson Boulevard

Suite 1544

Chicago, IL 60604

For Defendant

Reginald Jones: GOTTREICH & LEVINSOHN

BY: MS. ANNE REBECCA IZZI

311 W. Superior Street

Suite 215

Chicago, IL 60654

For Defendant

Dijon Foston: NOVELLE & ROELLIG

BY: MR. TIMOTHY R. ROELLIG

47 W. Polk Street

Suite M11

Chicago, IL 60605

For Defendant

Cottrell Mackey: LAW OFFICES OF JOHN MIRAGLIA

BY: MR. JOHN M. MIRAGLIA

910 W. Van Buren

#25

Chicago, IL 60607

For Defendant

Carey Hinton: LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS C. LIPUMA

BY: MR. FRANCIS C. LIPUMA

105 W. Adams Street

35th Floor

Chicago, IL 60603

For Defendant

Tony Parker: HALLOCK LAW

BY: MR. THOMAS C. HALLOCK

53 W. Jackson Boulevard

Suite 1424

Chicago, IL 60604

For Defendant

Quentin Lucious: KENT R. CARLSON & ASSOCIATES P.C.

BY: MR. KENT R. CARLSON

53 W. Jackson Boulevard

Suite 1523

Chicago, IL 60604

For Defendant

Derrick McNeal: MR. JOSHUA B. KUTNICK

900 W. Jackson Boulevard

Suite 7E

Chicago, IL 60607

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 2 of 47 PageID #:1738
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

(Proceedings heard via telephone:)

THE COURT: Good afternoon. This is Judge Tharp.

We're calling the case of United States v. Asad, et al., 17 CR

40.

If you are participating in this call, please keep

your line on mute unless you are actively engaged in the

discussion that is occurring.

I want to first start out getting appearances on the

record.

Do we have counsel for the United States on the line?

MS. WONG: Yes, Your Honor. Sheri Wong and Paul

Mower on behalf of the United States.

THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon.

Do we have counsel for Rakim Asad on?

MS. GAMBINO: Yes. Yes, Your Honor. Good afternoon.

This is Andrea Gambino on behalf of Mr. Asad.

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

Do we have counsel for Akeem Asad on the line?

MS. DALTON: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Blaire Dalton on behalf of Akeem Asad.

THE COURT: All right. And I should have asked, I'm

not sure the situation with respect to defendants given the

additional restrictions we're operating under with the MCC and

getting people access to phones in light of the COVID spike.

Do we have Rakim Asad on the line?

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 3 of 47 PageID #:1739
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

(No response.)

THE COURT: All right.

MS. GAMBINO: Your Honor, he's in custody, so I don't

believe he is on the line.

THE COURT: All right. Okay. I'm just going to

double-check. Sometimes folks show up unexpectedly.

Sometimes they don't show up when we expect them. So bear

with me here.

All right. So we have, I'm sorry, Akeem Asad's

counsel, Ms. Dalton, you're on?

MS. DALTON: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Do we have Akeem Asad on the

line?

MS. DALTON: I do not believe so.

THE COURT: All right.

Counsel for Mardi Lane?

MS. DOMPH: Good afternoon. Ellen Domph on behalf of

Mr. Lane.

THE COURT: Good afternoon. Is Mr. Lane on the line?

(No response.)

THE COURT: All right. No response.

Counsel for Martez Easter?

(No response.)

THE COURT: All right. Not on the line.

Counsel for Reginald Jones?

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 4 of 47 PageID #:1740
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

MS. IZZI: Yes, good afternoon, Judge. Annie Izzi,

I-z-z-i, from Mark Gottreich's office on behalf of Mr. Jones.

THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. And before I

forget, as I was preparing for this afternoon, I don't believe

Mr. Gottreich has an appearance on file on behalf of

Mr. Jones.

MS. IZZI: Oh.

THE COURT: So bring that to his attention, please.

MS. IZZI: Yes, I will, and we will get that filed.

Thank you.

THE COURT: It's possible --

MR. KUTNICK: Excuse me, Your Honor. This is Joshua

Kutnick. I represent Derrick McNeal. I believe he's a

co-defendant in this matter.

THE COURT: Yes?

MR. KUTNICK: Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I hadn't been

called yet, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We'll get to you, Mr. Kutnick.

All right. So, Ms. Izzi, if you would pass that on

to Mr. Gottreich so he'll get his appearance on the record.

And if you're going to be participating in the case, you

should enter an appearance as well.

MS. IZZI: I will, Judge. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right.

Do we have counsel for Dijon Foston?

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 5 of 47 PageID #:1741
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

MR. ROELLIG: Yes, Judge. Tim Roellig on behalf of

Mr. Foston.

THE COURT: All right. Is Mr. Foston on the line?

(No response.)

All right. No answer, so we'll assume no.

Counsel for Cottrell Mackey?

MR. MIRAGLIA: Good afternoon. John Miraglia on

behalf of Mr. Mackey.

THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon. Is

Mr. Mackey on the line?

(No response.)

THE COURT: All right. No response.

Counsel for Carey Hinton?

MR. LIPUMA: Good afternoon, Judge. Frank Lipuma on

behalf of Carey Hinton, and I believe Mr. Hinton is on the

line.

THE COURT: Okay. I think I heard him earlier as

well.

Mr. Hinton, are you on the line? You may be muted,

Mr. Hinton.

We're still not hearing you, Mr. Hinton. If you're

on the line, can you ask the correctional officers to take you

off mute?

All right. For the record, we're still not hearing

Mr. Hinton. Hopefully he will join in. I know we made

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 6 of 47 PageID #:1742
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

arrangements for him to participate and did hear him on the

line right before the call started. I'm not sure what the

problem is now.

Counsel for Tony Parker?

MR. HALLOCK: Good afternoon, Judge. Tom Hallock on

behalf of Tony Parker.

THE COURT: All right. Is Mr. Parker on the line?

He's in custody in IDOC, correct?

MR. HALLOCK: Judge, he's in Winnebago.

THE COURT: Oh, he's in Winnebago. Is he on the

line?

(No response.)

THE COURT: All right. No response.

Counsel for Quentin Lucious, or "LUSH-is"?

MR. CARLSON: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kent

Carlson on behalf of Quentin Lucious, and he is not on the

line.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

Counsel for Harriette McPherson?

MR. LIPUMA: Good afternoon, Judge. Frank Lipuma

again. I'm standing in for Matt Madden. He asked me to stand

in for him, Judge. And I'm not aware whether Ms. McPherson is

on the line or not.

THE COURT: All right. Ms. McPherson, are you on the

line?

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 7 of 47 PageID #:1743
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

(No response.)

THE COURT: All right. No response.

Counsel for Derrick McNeal?

MR. KUTNICK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Joshua

Kutnick on behalf of Derrick McNeal. I do not believe he's on

the line.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon.

And I'm not expecting Mr. Clancy on behalf of Rashad

Underwood but just in case he's on the line?

(No response.)

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Any defendants on the

line that we missed? At this juncture I've registered no

defendants participating in the call.

All right. With respect to Mr. Hinton, Mr. Lipuma,

we'll see where we stand in terms of once we've covered the

group information, we'll address the government's waiver

filing. And obviously we're going to need Mr. Hinton at some

point in that process. We'll see if he joins in during the

course of this call or not.

All right. The first thing I want to do is it's been

a few months now since we've had a general status in this

case. I would like to hear, and I'll start with the

government, what the parties' perspectives on where things

stand generally before we start talking about more particular

questions and issues.

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 8 of 47 PageID #:1744
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

Ms. Wong or Mr. Mower, you want to summarize where

things stand from the government's perspective?

MS. WONG: Yes, Your Honor. This is Sheri Wong

speaking.

At this point, since the last time we were before the

Court, the government has had substantive plea discussions

with a number of defense attorneys about whether their

clients' cases can be resolved short of trial. And I think we

can indicate at this point that we've had those discussions

with seven of the defendants' attorneys thus far.

Based on the extent of the conversations that we've

had, I believe we'll be able to have a firmer sense of whether

we'll be able to reach a resolution short of trial for those

particular defendants, and I think we can report a firmer

status on that in the next two to three weeks.

We do know that there is a trial date set for June,

and I think we've had discussions with various defense

attorneys about the status of that trial date. I think where

we are at this point is we --

(Audio interruption.)

THE COURT: Hold on, Ms. Wong.

This is Judge Tharp. Do we have the MCC on the line

now?

DEFENDANT HINTON: No, this is Carey Hinton.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hinton, what facility are you

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 9 of 47 PageID #:1745
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

housed in right now?

DEFENDANT HINTON: I'm in Kankakee.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. We lost you for a

moment, but we've got you. Mr. Lipuma, your attorney, is on

the line. So just stand by and we will resume our discussions

in a minute.

DEFENDANT HINTON: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Ms. Wong, I'm sorry. If you

would pick back up where you left off.

MS. WONG: No problem.

Given the number of defendants, given that the number

of defendants going to trial may affect potentially the trial

date and also perhaps the number of trials and also in light

of the parties' ongoing discussions, particularly given that

we might have confirmation of the trial landscape in the next

two to three weeks, we would request and suggest setting this

case over for another status perhaps, you know, the week of

the 7th at which time we can provide a more solid update

regarding the status of which defendants may be proceeding to

trial and which may be resolved short of trial.

We can addresses the other issues regarding

outstanding pretrial motions if the Court would like, or we

can stay on this topic about the trial schedule if the Court

would like more detail.

THE COURT: All right. Well, let's -- let me hear

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 10 of 47 PageID #:1746
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

from any defendant who wants to supplement the government's

report in terms of the status of things.

Any defense counsel want to weigh in?

MR. LIPUMA: Judge, this is Frank Lipuma for Carey

Hinton.

Judge, we did receive a draft proposed plea agreement

from the government last week, and I did send it off to my

client last week as well. I haven't had an opportunity to

discuss it with him yet. But it is something we would like to

have time to consider, discuss and then report back to court

whether we're going to go forward with the change of plea or

not.

And that also ties in, Judge, to a couple of motions

that we have pending with the Court, a Brady/Giglio motion and

also a motion to suppress DNA evidence. The government by

agreement filed a motion to stay briefing on those motions

while we tried to resolve this case, and the Court granted

that so briefing has been stayed on those motions. And I

spoke with Ms. Wong earlier today, and we would agree to

continue the stay on those motions while we try and pursue

plea negotiations and try to resolve this case.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

Anybody else?

MS. GAMBINO: Your Honor, this is Andrea --

MR. KUTNICK: Your Honor --

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 11 of 47 PageID #:1747
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

(Unreportable crosstalk.)

THE COURT: One of you start, and the other one can

follow.

MR. KUTNICK: Go ahead, Andrea. Go ahead.

MS. GAMBINO: This is Andrea Gambino on behalf of

Rakim Asad.

We have had some discussion with respect to a plea

resolution. We anticipate getting something in writing in the

next couple of weeks. So I would support the request to have

another status in two or three weeks.

THE COURT: All right.

Mr. Kutnick, was that you?

MR. KUTNICK: Yes, it was, Your Honor. On behalf of

Derrick McNeal, we have a severance motion pending which would

determine our course of action on the rest of the case.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KUTNICK: But otherwise I agree with a status to

determine the trial.

THE COURT: All right. Anyone else want to weigh in?

(No response.)

THE COURT: All right. I agree that we need a bit

more clarity in terms of what we would be talking about in

terms of going to trial. So to the extent that we might get

that in the next several weeks, I think we ought to see where

that -- see where we are at that point. So having a status

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 12 of 47 PageID #:1748
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

sooner rather than later I think makes some sense.

So let me suggest a further status on February 9th at

1:30 p.m. That's a Wednesday.

MS. WONG: Judge, I believe --

THE COURT: This would be a telephone status

obviously.

Go ahead.

MS. WONG: Your Honor, this is Sheri Wong speaking.

The government has a sentencing hearing the afternoon

of February 9th at 1:30. Could we possibly schedule this for

either the 8th or the 10th?

THE COURT: Bear with me.

We can't do it on the 8th or the 10th. We could do

it earlier in the day on the 9th, however. 9:30 on the 9th?

MS. WONG: Earlier on the 9th would work for the

government.

THE COURT: All right. Anybody else have any

problems with the February 9th, Wednesday, at 9:30 a.m. for a

further status?

(No response.)

THE COURT: Okay. Hearing no objections or issues

with that date, we'll set a further status hearing on

February 9th at 9:30 a.m. That will be by telephone. If you

wish your client to participate and they're in custody, you

need to contact Alberta two weeks before that status hearing

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 13 of 47 PageID #:1749
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

so that she can make the arrangements to have them available

to participate. That assumes that COVID restrictions permit

participation. Right now we're under very significant

constraints at least at the MCC on getting people to phones

and video. So if you want your client in custody to

participate or your client wants to participate, let Alberta

know, and we can try to make those arrangements. Obviously

anyone on bond is welcome to dial in as counsel does.

All right. There's a couple of specific things I

want to just confirm and address in no particular order here.

Going back through the docket, the arraignment on the

superseding indictment in this case, some were done by

magistrate judges, some were done by me. The record -- the

docket record doesn't reflect that the Due Process Protection

Act advisories were provided at all arraignments. Some

notations reflect that they were. Others don't say anything.

So to cure that problem, I want to make sure that

everyone understands that pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 5(f)(1), the Court is confirming the prosecutor's

continuing obligation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 United

States 83 and its progeny, to disclose information favorable

to the defendants that is material to guilt or punishment.

Failure to disclose may result in various consequences

including, but not limited to, exclusion of evidence, adverse

jury instructions, mistrial, dismissal of charges, vacatur of

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 14 of 47 PageID #:1750
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

a conviction or guilty plea, disciplinary action against the

prosecution and contempt proceedings. That is the standard

Rule 5(f)(1) language. That will be entered on the docket as

well in written form to comply with the requirements of that

rule.

Okay. Let's see. What else?

All right. In terms of a jury trial, obviously we

will be discussing that further at the next status hearing.

But we are set for trial on June 6th, "set for trial" being a

term we use loosely these days because there's no guarantee

that even if that's what we want to do that we will be able to

do it given the vagaries and restrictions under the COVID

situation. And I want to make sure everyone understands that.

THE CLERK: Judge, this is your clerk. Could you ask

Mr. Hinton to put his phone on mute?

THE COURT: Could you ask them to put your phone on

mute? Thank you.

DEFENDANT HINTON: Hey, they said put it on mute for

me.

THE COURT: All right. Bear with me.

DEFENDANT HINTON: Hey, excuse me. They don't got no

mute button. They only got a hold button.

THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to put you on mute then.

DEFENDANT HINTON: All right.

THE COURT: And we'll get back to you when we discuss

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 15 of 47 PageID #:1751
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

your situation. Okay?

DEFENDANT HINTON: All right.

THE COURT: Okay. Sorry.

All right. So we will discuss the trial date issue

at our next status hearing in more detail, but I did want to

make sure everyone knows that that date is still on the books,

and to the extent you're looking down the road, you should be

assuming that that trial date is going to go forward at this

point.

All right. I wanted to confirm the pretrial motion

situation. Mr. Lipuma, you've confirmed that you're in favor

of continuing to stay briefing on the motions filed by

Mr. Hinton. So we've addressed that.

Mr. Kutnick, your motion I think is fully briefed, as

is Ms. Domph's motion, so I will try to address those as

quickly as I can.

There's also been a motion filed by Akeem Asad to

dismiss Count Two of the indictment. That -- we have a

briefing schedule in place on that motion. The government's

response is due February 15th, and the reply is due March 8th.

And then we have the filing by the government

relating to requesting a conflict waiver colloquy with

Mr. Hinton which we'll address in a few minutes here.

Other than what I've detailed, are there any other

pretrial motions that are pending that I had missed in my

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 16 of 47 PageID #:1752
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

review of the docket?

MS. WONG: Your Honor, this is Sheri Wong speaking.

Not from the government's end. I think the Court has

recounted all the pending pretrial motions.

THE COURT: All right. I don't hear any defense

counsel piping up that I've missed their motion.

All right. So those are the pending motions. We'll

proceed on the course that I've just outlined. I do want to

make clear we're going to continue to exclude time through the

next status hearing in light of the complexity of this case,

the difficulty and the various scheduling issues inherent in a

trial potentially of 12 defendants which are exacerbated

tremendously by the restrictions we're operating under due to

the COVID pandemic, and as well we need to address now one,

two, three, four, at least five pending motions as to the

complexity of the situation as well.

So I'm going to continue to exclude time through the

next status hearing on those bases. I find the ends of

justice served by excluding time on those bases outweigh the

public and the defendants' interest in a speedy trial.

All right. Let's see what else we've got here. I

think other than the discussion relating to Mr. Hinton and the

potential conflict waiver there, that's it for my agenda here.

Is there anything else anyone wanted to raise other than the

situation relating to Mr. Hinton?

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 17 of 47 PageID #:1753
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

(No response.)

THE COURT: All right. Hearing nothing then --

MS. WONG: This is Sheri Wong speaking.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Ms. Wong.

MS. WONG: I was going to say nothing from the

government.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. I hear nothing from

the defense side either so you're welcome to stay on while we

discuss Mr. Hinton's situation if you wish. You're also

welcome to sign off at this time. So we'll give everybody a

few seconds to sign off, and then Mr. Lipuma, Mr. Hinton, stay

onboard, and the government's counsel should stay on the line

and we'll discuss that situation.

All right. Thank you. We'll talk to the rest of you

February 9th.

Okay. Everybody that's going is probably gone.

All right. I received and have reviewed the

government's motion to conduct an inquiry as to a potential

conflict of interest. The predicate of that motion is

Mr. Lipuma's representation not only of Mr. Hinton but an

individual named Sincere, and is that how that first name is

pronounced?

MS. WONG: That's correct, yes, Sincere.

THE COURT: Sincere Brannon.

Mr. Lipuma, I know there's similar filings have been

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 18 of 47 PageID #:1754
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

made in the case in which Mr. Brannon is the defendant. And I

have looked at that docket and so I have seen the supplemental

filings that were filed by the government and by Mr. Lipuma on

behalf of Mr. Brannon in 19 CR 428 at the request of Judge

Norgle. Those have been filed in that case. They're not of

record yet in this case.

But I take it from that submission, Mr. Lipuma, and

from the fact that the government's motion includes as an

attachment a signed waiver, written waiver by Mr. Hinton that

Mr. Hinton is not opposed having a waiver of colloquy

conducted and the Court determining whether he had knowingly

and voluntarily waived his right to counsel that is not

wavering under a potential conflict.

MR. LIPUMA: Yes, Your Honor. We have had extensive

talks, both Mr. Hinton and I and Mr. Brannon and I, and they

certainly know each other, Judge. There's no hiding that

fact. But as set forth in the pleading we filed I believe

yesterday with Judge Norgle, there is really -- there's no

actual conflict of interest here and there is really no

potential for a conflict of interest here because as I have

informed Ms. Wong, we did our homework on this, Judge, and

wanted to do this the right way through professional ethics as

well. But neither of the defendants in these cases are

interested in cooperating with the government against the

other. And one of the principal reasons behind this, Judge,

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 19 of 47 PageID #:1755
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

first of all, is the set of charges are completely different.

Mr. Brannon is charged with a single day's set of offenses

that occurred during a search warrant of Harriette McPherson's

home, one of the codefendants in this case, and Rakim Asad,

who happens to be Sincere Brannon's brother.

So there's quite a lot of interconnectedness here,

but the charges against Sincere are very limited, and we're

hopeful for a reasonable resolution in that case. And we just

don't see any potential for a conflict of interest at all. So

we had signed the waiver of the conflict -- Mr. Hinton has

signed the waiver of conflict of interest that followed

several occasion where's we discussed it and I explained it to

him. And he's very adamant that he does not want to cooperate

with the government. I personally see no way that I would try

to, you know, spare one client at the expense of another

especially when they're in different cases. And even though

we are not objecting to this inquiry under Rule 44(c), I think

the government's interests are legitimate. They want to

protect their record. But at the same time, I do want to

point out, as I did in Judge Norgle's inquiry, that Rule 44(c)

really is inapplicable by the express terms of the rule.

Nevertheless, because we are both interested, both

clients are interested in pursuing reasonable resolutions of

this case and after thorough discussions, it's evidently clear

to us that Mr. Hinton has voluntarily, knowingly and

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 20 of 47 PageID #:1756
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

intelligently waived any potential for a conflict of interest,

and he's certainly available for the Court to inquire further

with him, Judge. He certainly has read everything that I've

sent to him, and like I said, I have reached out to him on

multiple occasions at Kankakee County Jail. We discussed this

and other things. And we respectfully request the Court to

accept his waiver and allow his counsel of record to continue

to represent him.

THE COURT: All right. Well, let me ask the

government to -- its submission suggests that it is able and

willing to provide more information about the factual overlap

between the charges against Mr. Brannon and the charges

against Mr. Hinton. And I certainly understand that the

charges against Mr. Brannon are in a separate case. No. 1,

that doesn't rule out the possibility there are connections

there whether or not obvious on their face, but obviously the

government's position that Mr. Brannon is an unindicted

co-conspirator in the conspiracy that's charged in this case

in Count Two of the superseding indictment does certainly

raise the spectra of a potential conflict of interest with

respect to the charge, at least that charge that Mr. Hinton is

facing.

So Ms. Wong, Mr. Mower, what can you tell me in terms

of the factual overlap between the conduct that's at issue

with respect to Mr. Brannon and the conduct at issue with

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 21 of 47 PageID #:1757
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

respect to Mr. Hinton?

MS. WONG: Yes, Judge. We can certainly provide some

additional details.

As we note in our motion and as the Court is aware,

Mr. Hinton here is charged in a count -- two counts of the

superseding indictment. Count One he's alleged to have been a

member of the LAFA street gang who participated in the conduct

of that gang's affairs which included, among other activities,

narcotics trafficking and then Count Two alleges that

Mr. Hinton, several co-defendants, and then other indicted

co-conspirators participated in a conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute and then distribute narcotics in Chicago,

Minnesota, and elsewhere. And as Mr. Lipuma noted,

Mr. Brannon is charged in a separate case with narcotics and

firearm offenses stemming from the seizure of firearms and

narcotics on May 16, 2019.

In terms of the government's investigation into the

LAFAs, the government uncovered evidence during that

investigation that Mr. Brannon was either a LAFA member or a

LAFA associate who had and has close ties to a number of the

charged LAFAs, including the defendant, Mr. Hinton, and other

co-defendants charged in this pending case.

Then as part of the LAFAs' specific narcotics

activities, during the government's investigation, we

uncovered evidence that Mr. Brannon was a participant in the

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 22 of 47 PageID #:1758
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

narcotics conspiracy in which Mr. Hinton is currently charged.

And if the government's case were to proceed to trial, the

government may elect at that trial to present evidence of

Mr. Brannon's participation in the narcotics conspiracy which

would include intercepted wire calls and surveillance showing

Mr. Brannon making drug deliveries to customers of

co-defendant Rakim Asad.

In addition, the government recovered from a search

of Rakim Asad's residence a drug ledger with Mr. Brannon's

fingerprints on it which we would argue connects him to that

drug conspiracy.

Now, it's true that Mr. Brannon is not currently

charged in the present case as a co-conspirator with

Mr. Hinton, but there is, given what we've outlined thus far,

sufficient factual and evidentiary overlap here that we felt

it appropriate to raise the potential conflict with the Court

and to have the colloquy with Mr. Hinton to ensure that he has

acknowledged and he understands that he has the right to

conflict-free representation, that there may be this potential

conflict with Mr. Lipuma's representation with him and

Mr. Brannon.

We believe -- we are not seeking to disqualify

Mr. Lipuma from either representation. We would just request

that the Court here confirm the content of Mr. Hinton's

written waiver and ensure that he has, as Mr. Lipuma has, you

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 23 of 47 PageID #:1759
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

know, represented and we trust that to be the case that he's

discussed this issue with Mr. Lipuma, that he understands the

contents of the conflict of interest waiver and that he's, in

fact, you know, signed and dated that waiver. That's all

we're asking for here.

THE COURT: All right.

Anything else you want to add, Mr. Lipuma?

MR. LIPUMA: No, Your Honor. I think it's been

pretty well covered by Ms. Wong and myself. And I appreciate

the Court actually taking the step of reading the pleadings

that we filed in the other case. So thank you for taking that

extra step, Judge.

THE COURT: All right.

Ms. Wong, let me ask you, you said during the course

of the investigation this additional evidence was developed

that in the government's view connects Mr. Brannon to the

Count Two conspiracy. That, No. 1, answers one of my

questions which was -- or at least partly answers one of my

questions which is whether something new has developed in

terms of the government's investigation that accounts for the

motion now which we're almost two years into the superseding

indictment.

And I guess the other aspect I want to understand

better is whether there's any evidence that the government has

developed that reflects or could provide the foundation for an

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 24 of 47 PageID #:1760
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

argument as to interaction between Mr. Brannon and Mr. Hinton

in connection with the conspiracy charged in Count Two.

MS. WONG: I'll take the first part of your question.

There's no new evidence that the government has

uncovered with respect to the Count Two drug conspiracy. The

evidence that the government would point to, as I just

outlined, is evidence that would date back to I believe 2017,

2016, 2017.

In terms of the timing, as we have indicated, we

don't believe that there's an actual conflict here and that's

why we have not moved to disqualify Mr. Lipuma. We believe

there's just the potential conflict given the development of

plea negotiations which have begun to be more concrete in the

last couple of months. That's why we felt it appropriate at

this time to bring the motion and raise it with the Court

given that the plea negotiations have progressed to this

particular stage.

THE COURT: All right. And the second part, just to

make it easier for you in your recollection here is the

outline, you know, fingerprints on the drug ledger and some

involvement with other defendants, is there any evidence of,

you know, interaction specifically relating to the conspiracy

or arguably relating to the conspiracy between Mr. Brannon and

Mr. Hinton?

MS. WONG: Judge, not that I am aware of, no.

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 25 of 47 PageID #:1761
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

THE COURT: All right. Okay. Well, there is

certainly the potential for a conflict of interest here. I

understand Mr. Lipuma's perspective having, you know,

investigated the facts, having spoken with Mr. Brannon and

Mr. Hinton. I understand the position that in light of the

information available to him he perceives that there is not a

potential conflict of interest, but I think there's clearly

potential for conflict of interest regardless of what the

facts appear to be at this point in time. You know, it's

correct that Rule 44(c) does not by its terms apply because

Mr. Brannon is not a defendant in this case. But given the

government's position and the evidence supporting that

position to suggest that Mr. Brannon could be a co- --

unindicted co-conspirator with respect to the conspiracy

charged in Count Two, certainly the concerns that animate

Rule 44(c) are present virtually to the same degree that they

would be present if Mr. Brannon were, in fact, a charged

co-defendant in that count.

So I think it's appropriate for us to proceed on the

basis that there is a potential for conflict of interest here.

Such conflicts can be waived assuming that the waiver is

knowing and voluntary, and I think it's appropriate -- it's

certainly appropriate to conduct that colloquy of Mr. Hinton

to make sure he understands the issues and the concerns that

Mr. Lipuma's representation of both he and Mr. Brannon raised.

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 26 of 47 PageID #:1762
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

So I'm prepared to go through that colloquy now.

Alternatively, if on the basis of anything that we've

discussed to this point if we want to -- Mr. Lipuma, if you

want to have any further dialogue with Mr. Hinton and

Mr. Brannon, I'll certainly give you an opportunity to do

that, or if you wanted to file anything in writing in response

to the government's filing, I would certainly give you that

opportunity as well.

How would you like to proceed?

MR. LIPUMA: Thank you, Judge, for the opportunity.

I don't think we need to file anything further, Judge, and

Mr. Hinton and I truly have discussed this on multiple

occasions in-depth, Judge. So I think we're prepared to

proceed today if the Court has time.

THE COURT: All right. I do have time, and we'll

march forward.

All right. Mr. Hinton, I muted you, so I'm going to

unmute you. Bear with me.

Okay. Mr. Hinton, can you hear me?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. I know you can't do anything about

the background noise probably, but keep your -- we'll not put

you on mute now because I need to ask you some questions to

make sure you understand what you're doing here.

DEFENDANT HINTON: Okay.

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 27 of 47 PageID #:1763
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

THE COURT: I'm going to go through these questions.

It's important that you answer them truthfully and accurately

because, No. 1, I'm going to put you under oath, and it's

going to be a crime to make false statements under oath so you

don't want to do that. And, No. 2, I need your truthful,

accurate answers to these questions in order to make the

determinations that I need to make with respect to

Mr. Lipuma's representation. As we go along, if there's

anything I'm asking you that you don't understand or you want

me to clarify, just say so, and I will try to do that. All

right?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. The first thing I'm going to

do is swear you in.

Do you swear or affirm that any statements you make

in the course of this proceeding today will be the truth, the

whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Would you state your full

name, Mr. Hinton.

DEFENDANT HINTON: Carey Ramon Hinton.

THE COURT: And how old are you, sir?

DEFENDANT HINTON: 29.

THE COURT: Are you married?

DEFENDANT HINTON: No, sir.

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 28 of 47 PageID #:1764
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

THE COURT: Do you have children?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: How many kids do you have?

DEFENDANT HINTON: One.

THE COURT: Okay. How old is he or she?

DEFENDANT HINTON: He's 8. It's a son. It's a he.

THE COURT: All right. Your son?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Before you were taken into

custody, what city or town did you live in?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Chicago, Illinois.

THE COURT: All right. Have you lived in Chicago

most of your life?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: What's the highest level of formal

education you've completed?

DEFENDANT HINTON: GED.

THE COURT: All right. You have a GED?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. How far did you go in high

school before you dropped out?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Senior year.

THE COURT: Senior year?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. So you can read and write English?

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 29 of 47 PageID #:1765
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay. Before you were taken into

custody, did you have a job?

DEFENDANT HINTON: No, sir.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. I couldn't understand that.

DEFENDANT HINTON: No, I said no.

THE COURT: Okay. During your -- since you've

dropped out of high school between then and now, have you been

employed at various times?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Have I been what?

THE COURT: Have you had a job ever in your adult

life?

DEFENDANT HINTON: No.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you feel like you're in good

health?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Are you presently taking any

prescription medications?

DEFENDANT HINTON: No, sir.

THE COURT: Have you ever been under the care of any

mental health professional?

DEFENDANT HINTON: No, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Have you had any drugs or

alcohol in the last 24 hours?

DEFENDANT HINTON: No, sir.

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 30 of 47 PageID #:1766
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

THE COURT: Is there any reason that you don't feel

capable of making significant decisions here this afternoon?

DEFENDANT HINTON: No, sir.

THE COURT: All right. You understand -- you

understand that the nature of what we're talking about is

whether Mr. Lipuma can continue to represent both you and

Mr. Brannon?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. And are you prepared to address

questions that relate to that topic?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay.

Mr. Lipuma, are you aware of any reason that

Mr. Hinton is not competent to proceed here with this waiver

colloquy this afternoon?

MR. LIPUMA: I don't have any doubts about his

competency, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ms. Wong, Mr. Mower, does the government

have any reason to doubt Mr. Hinton's competency to waive his

right to conflict-free representation?

MS. WONG: Your Honor, the government has no doubts

about Mr. Hinton's competency.

THE COURT: Okay.

All right. Mr. Hinton, what's the name of the

attorney who represents you in this case?

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 31 of 47 PageID #:1767
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

THE DEFENDANT: Francis Lipuma.

THE COURT: All right. And are you satisfied with

the advice and counsel that Mr. Lipuma has given you as your

attorney?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Is there anything you think Mr. Lipuma

should have done or should be doing for you that he has not

been doing for you?

DEFENDANT HINTON: No, sir.

THE COURT: And do you want Mr. Lipuma to continue to

represent you in this matter?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. In order for Mr. Lipuma to

continue to represent you in this matter, I need to make sure

that you understand some rights that you have and that you're

giving up those rights and you know what you're doing in

giving up those rights.

DEFENDANT HINTON: Okay.

THE COURT: You have a right under the Sixth

Amendment of the United States Constitution to effective

assistance of counsel at all stages during the course of the

criminal trial. Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. What we're doing here is I

need to make sure that you are fully advised about a potential

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 32 of 47 PageID #:1768
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

conflict of interest that Mr. Lipuma may have in representing

you. A conflict of interest is basically a situation that

might result in your attorney having divided loyalty. Do you

understand that's what a conflict of interest is?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Your attorney, Mr. Lipuma,

owes you an undivided loyalty. By that I mean that his sole

concern is supposed to be your welfare and your interest.

That's his duty to look after as your attorney. Do you

understand that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Now, I've been advised by the

government that Mr. Lipuma, in addition to his representation

of you, also represents another individual who is a defendant

in a separate criminal case. That individual is Sincere

Brannon. Mr. Brannon is charged in that case with possession

with intent to distribute marijuana and possession of a

firearm in connection with drug trafficking.

The government has also advised the Court that it

considers Mr. Brannon to be an uncharged co-conspirator in the

drug conspiracy that you are charged with in Count Two of the

superseding indictment in this case. That means that the

government thinks you conspired with Mr. Brannon as well as

with the other defendants who are charged in Count Two even

though the government has not charged Mr. Brannon in

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 33 of 47 PageID #:1769
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

participating in that conspiracy. Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. You should also understand

that just because Mr. Brannon has not been charged with

participating in that conspiracy does not necessarily mean

that he won't be charged with participating in that

conspiracy. The government could still seek to supersede

again to add Mr. Brannon to that charge or to add other

charges or other defendants in that charge. Do you understand

that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Now, I want to make sure you

understand that the charges you're facing in this case are

serious charges. In Count One, you're charged with

participating in a racketeering enterprise, or conspiring to

participate in a racketeering enterprise by, among other

things, attempting to murder another individual. You

understand that that's the nature of the charge in Count One?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And in Count Two, you're charged with

conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and distribute

controlled substances. You understand that's the nature of

the charge you're facing in Count Two?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And each of those counts -- and,

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 34 of 47 PageID #:1770
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Ms. Wong, you can correct me if I've got this wrong, but each

of these counts carries a maximum term of imprisonment for you

of up to 20 years. So if you're convicted of these crimes,

you could be imprisoned for up to 40 years. Do you understand

that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

MS. WONG: Judge, if I could.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. WONG: I believe on Count Two, the maximum term

of imprisonment is 40 years.

THE COURT: I didn't think the quantity element was

applicable to Mr. Hinton.

MS. WONG: No, but based on the conspiracy charge, I

believe the maximum is 40 years. There's no mandatory minimum

that's alleged.

THE COURT: Okay.

So, Mr. Hinton, I stand corrected. On Count Two, the

maximum penalty is 40 years. So if you're convicted on both

counts, you could face a sentence of up to 60 years of

imprisonment. Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. And you're aware, I

take it, that Mr. Lipuma represents Mr. Brannon?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. And you had an opportunity to

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 35 of 47 PageID #:1771
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

discuss that issue with Mr. Lipuma?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. And by virtue of his

representation of Mr. Brannon, do you understand that

Mr. Lipuma owes the same duty of loyalty to Mr. Brannon that

he owes to you?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Do you understand those

duties of loyalty that he owes to Mr. Brannon and to you may

create a conflict, a situation where Mr. Lipuma has divided

loyalties? Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. I want to give you some

examples of how that might -- could play out.

A lawyer who represents two defendants in a common

investigation or case may not investigate the cases thoroughly

if there's a reason to think doing so will harm the interest

of the other -- of one of the two defendants, or in this case

I'm going to phrase all of this in the context of you and

Mr. Brannon. So it's possible theoretically, and I -- in

giving you these examples, I'm not suggesting that this would

be the case with Mr. Lipuma, but these are the kinds of

problems and conflicts that can arise when an attorney

represents two clients in a related criminal proceeding.

Do you understand that Mr. Lipuma might not

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 36 of 47 PageID #:1772
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

investigate the cases thoroughly if there's reason to think

that doing so would harm Mr. Brannon's interest?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Do you understand that if Mr. Brannon

were to say something helpful about you to Mr. Lipuma but it

was harmful to him, Mr. Lipuma may not be able to share that

information with you or use it to help you because it's

privileged and may harm Mr. Brannon. Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes. Yes, sir.

THE COURT: So in other words, if Mr. Lipuma had a

conversation with Mr. Brannon where he said Carey Hinton

wasn't involved at all, it was all me, I did all that stuff

that's charged in there, Mr. Lipuma would not be able to tell

you that. He would not be able to use that information to

help you defend against the charges. Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Do you understand that if the

government were to offer a deal to you to cooperate against

Mr. Brannon and possibly other defendants, he would not be

able to entertain that possibility and you might not even hear

about it? Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: You understand there could be evidence

that the government offers at trial against you that your

lawyer may not object to because it's helpful to Mr. Brannon,

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 37 of 47 PageID #:1773
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

or there may be evidence helpful to you that Mr. Lipuma

doesn't offer into evidence because it's harmful to

Mr. Brannon. You understand that's a possibility?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Do you understand if the case

went to trial you would have the right to testify or not

testify if you so chose? Do you understand that Mr. Lipuma's

advice about whether you should testify or not might be

tainted because of concerns about what you may be asked about

Mr. Brannon's conduct?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: So in other words, Mr. Lipuma might be in

a situation where he doesn't give you the real benefit of his

advice about whether it's good for you to testify or not. He

might be compelled to think about whether it's good for

Mr. Brannon for you to testify or not. Do you understand that

possibility?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: So do you understand that if Mr. Brannon

were to testify either in his case or if he was ultimately

charged in this case, if he were to testify and say something

harmful about you, Mr. Lipuma might not be able to effectively

cross-examine Mr. Brannon because he can't use all the

information he has about Mr. Brannon because it's privileged?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 38 of 47 PageID #:1774
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

THE COURT: Do you understand that during a trial or

during sentencing or even in plea negotiations with the

government, Mr. Lipuma might not be able to argue or might not

want to argue that Mr. Brannon is more culpable than you

because that would hurt Mr. Brannon?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. So in other words, it's a

common argument for a lawyer to say, look, my client was a

small fish compared to all these other people, and his

sentence should be much lower, or you should cut him a much

better deal. Mr. Lipuma, by virtue of his dual

representation, wouldn't be able to make that argument if he

was comparing you to Mr. Brannon. He wouldn't be able to say,

look, Brannon was really the guy that was in charge here or he

was the one who was really doing the serious misconduct, not

my guy. He wouldn't be able to make that argument. Do you

understand that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. You also understand that it's

conceivable that Mr. Lipuma could have financial incentive

arising from dual representation that lead him to favor

Mr. Brannon or that color his advice about whether he can

effectively represent you. And by that I mean first,

Mr. Lipuma obviously makes more money if he represents you

both. He gets paid by two defendants rather than one

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 39 of 47 PageID #:1775
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

defendant. Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. And you also understand that

Mr. Lipuma -- and, Mr. Lipuma, you can correct me if I'm

wrong. But based on the docket, I understand that Mr. Lipuma

is retained by Mr. Brannon, meaning Mr. Brannon is paying him.

He is not appointed by the federal defender.

Is that correct, Mr. Lipuma?

MR. LIPUMA: Yes, Judge, that's correct. I have been

appointed in this case, and I was retained by Mr. Brannon back

in 2019.

THE COURT: Okay.

So Mr. Lipuma is getting paid by Mr. Brannon. That

could create a situation where Mr. Lipuma is reluctant to

withdraw from his representation of Mr. Brannon given the

adverse financial impact that could cause Mr. Brannon. Do you

understand that possibility?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And do you understand, again, generally

that the advice Mr. Lipuma has given you about this conflict

issue might be colored by his desire to continue representing

both you and Mr. Brannon?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes. Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Now, understanding that, the

Court is willing to appoint new counsel for the limited

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 40 of 47 PageID #:1776
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

purpose of advising you about this waiver, meaning it would be

a good idea, and I will appoint someone for you to talk to who

doesn't have any potential involvement in this case about

whether it's a good idea for you to continue with Mr. Lipuma

as your lawyer or not. Do you want to discuss this issue with

independent counsel before proceeding?

DEFENDANT HINTON: No, it's okay.

THE COURT: All right. Did you sign a waiver of a

conflict of interest form?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Before you signed that form,

did you review it carefully?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Did you discuss it with Mr. Lipuma?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Did you discuss it with any other lawyer?

DEFENDANT HINTON: No, sir.

THE COURT: Do you have any questions about the

waiver of the conflict of interest that you signed?

DEFENDANT HINTON: No, sir.

THE COURT: Did you sign it voluntarily?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Did anyone try to force you to sign it?

DEFENDANT HINTON: No, sir.

THE COURT: Did anyone promise you anything at all if

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 41 of 47 PageID #:1777
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

you did sign it?

DEFENDANT HINTON: No, sir.

THE COURT: Do you understand that that waiver, that

written waiver that you signed says that you want Mr. Lipuma

to continue to represent you even though you may have a

conflict of interest?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And do you understand that in waiving any

conflict of interest that Mr. Lipuma might have you're giving

up your right to argue that Mr. Lipuma rendered ineffective

assistance of counsel due to any conflict of interest that may

arise? Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: So in other words, you wouldn't be able

to argue for a new trial or reversal on appeal that Mr. Lipuma

did something that constituted ineffective assistance of

counsel because of or on account of this conflict of interest

that you might have. You wouldn't be able to make that

argument. Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: So if Mr. Lipuma were to do something as

your lawyer during the investigation or the prosecution or the

trial of this case that you think favors Mr. Brannon's

interests over yours, you're not going to have a remedy for

that. You're not going to be able to withdraw a guilty plea

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 42 of 47 PageID #:1778
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

or get a new trial based on that conflict. Do you understand

that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. And, again, do you understand

that if you don't want Mr. Lipuma to continue to represent

you, the Court would appoint new counsel to represent you in

his place? You understand that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. And, again, do you want the

Court to appoint an independent lawyer to advise you on this

issue?

DEFENDANT HINTON: No, sir.

THE COURT: Do you have any questions that you want

to ask the Court?

DEFENDANT HINTON: No, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Ms. Wong, Mr. Mower, anything

else that the government would like to have included in this

colloquy?

MS. WONG: Your Honor, in reviewing the written

waiver, there is an error in paragraph 3 that I just wanted to

bring to the Court's attention and to also Mr. Lipuma and

Mr. Hinton's attention.

I think we've covered this in the colloquy, but

paragraph 3 currently reads, "I have chosen Francis Lipuma as

my attorney in this matter." And I think that should be

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 43 of 47 PageID #:1779
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

corrected to say that "Francis Lipuma has been appointed as

my attorney in this matter." And I just wanted to raise

that --

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. WONG: -- to correct the record on that issue.

THE COURT: All right. For the record, I read that

to be a confirmation of his desire to continue with

Mr. Lipuma.

But just to clarify the situation, you understand,

Mr. Hinton, that Mr. Lipuma has been -- was originally --

became your attorney in this matter because he was appointed

by the Court?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. And you understand

that the way that he became Mr. Brannon's lawyer was

different. Mr. Brannon reached out and hired Mr. Lipuma

without the involvement of the Court. Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. And you understand, again, as

I just asked you, that if you were to decide that you didn't

want Mr. Lipuma to continue because of these potential

conflicts of interest that the Court would appoint another

lawyer for you to come in and take Mr. Lipuma's place? You

understand that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 44 of 47 PageID #:1780
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

THE COURT: All right. And it's your decision and

your choice today that knowing all of this and the potential

conflict of interest that could affect Mr. Lipuma's

representation of you you still want Mr. Lipuma to continue as

your lawyer in this case?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Anything else from the government?

MS. WONG: Nothing else from the government.

THE COURT: Mr. Lipuma, anything else that you think

should be included in the colloquy?

MR. LIPUMA: No, Your Honor. I think it's been very

well covered.

THE COURT: All right.

Based on our discussion here this afternoon, based on

my oral colloquy with Mr. Hinton, his responses which have

been made under oath, the filings the government and both

Mr. Lipuma made in the case in which Mr. Brannon is charged, I

do conclude that Mr. Hinton is knowingly and voluntarily

waiving any conflict of interest that may arise by virtue of

Mr. Lipuma's representation of Mr. Brannon and Mr. Hinton. I

find that Mr. Hinton waives that conflict of interest or any

potential conflict of interest that might arise from that

representation and that Mr. Lipuma may continue to represent

Mr. Hinton going forward in this case.

All right. Mr. Hinton, the last thing I want to make

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 45 of 47 PageID #:1781
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

sure you understand is if you change your mind and decide that

Mr. Lipuma -- that you don't want Mr. Lipuma to go forward

because of the conflict of interest, you need to notify him of

that ASAP, and Mr. Lipuma will advise the Court and we will

revisit this decision. Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. I think that covers

what we need to cover with respect to the waiver of

Mr. Lipuma's representation of Mr. Brannon.

Anything else?

MS. WONG: Nothing else from the government.

MR. LIPUMA: Judge, if I just may ask because it's so

hard to maintain contact with people in custody. Could I just

ask Mr. Hinton if he has received the letter I sent him with

the plea agreement?

THE COURT: Sure.

DEFENDANT HINTON: Yeah, I received it.

MR. LIPUMA: Okay. I'm going to set up a legal call,

okay, and we'll talk soon.

DEFENDANT HINTON: All right.

MR. LIPUMA: Thank you very much, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you.

We'll reconvene on February 9th. If there's a need

to do anything sooner, contact my courtroom deputy.

Thank you. We're adjourned.

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 46 of 47 PageID #:1782
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

MR. LIPUMA: Thank you, sir.

MS. WONG: Thank you.

(Which were all of the proceedings heard.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript,

to the extent possible, of the record of proceedings in the

above-entitled matter given the limitations of conducting

proceedings via telephone.

/s/ KELLY M. FITZGERALD May 7, 2022

KELLY M. FITZGERALD, CSR, RMR, CRR

Official Court Reporter

Case: 1:17-cr-00040 Document #: 360 Filed: 05/07/22 Page 47 of 47 PageID #:1783