By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE, July 9– Ari Teman, raising prosecutorial misconduct up to the day of his then-scheduled sentencing on December 1, 2020 learned on that day that his defense lawyer is married to a prosecutor. Now he has formally requested the return of his retainer and restitution, see below.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Paul A. Engelmayer held the December 1, 2020 proceeding. Inner City Press covered and tweeted it, below.
Now on July 9, 2021, Judge Engelmayer held another proceeding, and Inner City Press again covered it. Judge Engelmayer denied a motion that he recuse himself, based on Bank of America's role and Berkshire Hathaway's stake in BofA. We may return to that, and to a "Jake Green" filing the Judge Engelmayer cited. For this, this: "bench decision denying the defense's motions for vacatur of the defendant's convictions, for a new trial, and for the Court's recusal... The Court also set the following schedule: Sentencing is scheduled for July 28, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1305 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY. The Court authorizes the defense to file a supplemental sentencing submission, limited to the discrete areas identified on the record of todays conference. This submission is due July 16, 2021. The Court authorizes the Government to file a response, due July 21, 2021. By Tuesday, July 13, 2021, defense counsel is to file an affidavit identifying with specificity any concrete respects in which the defendants legal interests in this case have been injured by the fact that, for a brief period after trial, he was represented by, among others, an attorney married to an Assistant United States Attorney. (Sentencing set for 7/28/2021 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 1305, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer)
From December 1, 2020: From the first moment, Judge Engelmayer said he would not be imposing sentence in the proceeding. He expressed amazement that the conflict wasn't disclosed to him, particularly by the prosecutors usually so fast to request so-calls Curcio hearings. He discovered it as he prepared remarks about having known the lawyer.
But a simple Internet search finds that defense lawyer Noam Korati Biale of Sher Tremonte LLP is married to Margaret Graham, who appears working an SDNY prosecutor in press releases.
Teman added that Biale and Sher Tremonte were specifically retained to work on Brady disclosure issues, citing US v. Nejad, US v. Ahuja and other cases covered by Inner City Press.
He also noted that since people are working at home, it is more possible for spouses to overhear each other's work.
So sentencing was adjourned, as were the Bank of America issues Inner City Press covered earlier in the day, here.
Now on January 28, this: "ORDER as to Ari Teman: The sentencing hearing for defendant Ari Teman was scheduled for December 1, 2020, but was terminated shortly after it began after the Court identified the need for a Curcio hearing in order to permit Sher Tremonte LLP, which had recently appeared on Mr. Teman's behalf, torepresent him alongside trial counsel. The Court has since granted a series of adjournments to enable Mr. Teman to secure alternative post-trial counsel. Yesterday, notices of appearance for Mr. Teman were filed by Susan G. Kellman, Esq., and Andrew J. Frisch, Esq. See Dkts. 199, 200. The Court welcomes new counsel, for whom the Court has great esteem. Although the sentencing record otherwise appears complete, the Court, before setting a new sentencing date, would benefit from receiving letter submissions from counsel addressing the following discrete points: 1. Bail pending appeal: The Court wishes to reach a determination, before imposing sentence, on whether it will grant bail pending appeal. That is because the Court regards it as relevant to the reasonable and proper sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) whether Mr. Teman is likely to be incarcerated at a time when the restrictive and difficult conditions attendant to the COVID-19 pandemic remain in place. In numerous cases involving defendants who either have been in custody since March 2020 and/or who have been about to enter custody, the Court has imposed a shorter sentence than it otherwise would have, in recognition of the heightened rigors of custody during the pandemic. That factor would be present were Mr. Teman to commence serving his sentence not long after the upcoming sentencing, but would not clearly be so were the Court to grant bail pending appeal. The Court therefore solicits counsels' views on whether Mr. Teman qualifies for bail pending appeal. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b); United States v. Randell, 761 F.2d 122 (1985).2. Restitution and forfeiture: On the eve of the December 1, 2020 sentencing, the Government submitted evidentiary materials in support of a proposed forfeiture order that, had Mr. Teman's representation issue not arisen, independently would have required an adjournment. The Court wishes to resolve, in an orderly fashion, what the appropriate restitution order is, and whetherand if so, on what termsa forfeiture order is also warranted, as the Government has urged. The Court therefore solicits counsels' views as to whether and on what terms restitution and/or forfeiture orders are merited. The Court accordingly sets the following schedule: By Friday, February 12, 2021, the defense is to submit a memorandum setting out its views on bail pending appeal, and the Government is to submit a memorandum setting out its views on restitution and forfeiture, attaching proposed such orders and evidentiary material supporting the monetary calculations in those orders. By Friday, February 26, 2021, the Government is to respond to the defense's memorandum as to bail pending appeal, and the defense is to respond to the Government's memorandum as to forfeiture and restitution. The Court does not invite replies to these submissions. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 1/28/2021)"
If a defendant with retained counsel runs into a conflict like this, and can't get retainer returned, how to secure substitute counsel? Watch this site.
The case is US v. Teman, 19-cr-696 (Engelmayer)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
