SDNY COURTHOUSE, April 15 – When Cesar Sayoc was led for a second time into the courtroom of Judge Jed Rakoff in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 15 his March 21 guilty plea to more than 60 criminal counts was in question. Less than an hour later it was again all systems go: no Curcio lawyer to consult with, no vacating of any of the March 21 guilty pleas, and sentencing now sent for August 5 at 2 pm. What happened? Periscope video here.
The U.S. Attorney's office began by arguing that in light of Sayoc's two letters - so far - to Judge Rakoff, perhaps the plea should be vacated and Curcio counsel assigned. But once Sayok said what was wanted - that he knew that at least property, in the form of mail boxes, could be damaged by his amateur explosives - the government was satisfied. There is a third letter in the mail but not yet received. Sayok's Federal Defenders lawyers said it might have to be redacted. Judge Rakoff asked Sayok if he wanted to consult with another lawyer, and Sayok said no.
By contrast, in the recent SDNY case of Daniel Hernandez a/k/a/ Tekashi 6ix9ine, Curcio counsel was assigned despite the defendant insisting he was happy with his counsel. See Inner City Press story here. There, the possible conflict of interest was structural: his counsel Lance Lazzaro represented other co-defendants. But here Sayok sent his letter(s) without even sending copies to his assigned counsel. A Curcio counsel might slow things down. But what's the rush? That was exactly the phrase Sayok used on April 15, that he'd felt rushed. Inner City Press, present in Judge Rakoff's courtroom on both March 21 and April 15, will have more on this.
Sayok appeared on March 21 to plead guilty to 65 counts his raspy voice was barely audible, even from the front row where Inner City Press sat. The problem was more than volume. On the key point of whether he intended for the bombs he sent to people ranging from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris to Tom Steyer to explode, Sayoc was unclear. Afterward some said he was "crazy like a fox," ready to make this argument at his sentencing on September 12. But Sayoc also asked Judge Rakoff if the government will give him a list of the property of his that they are taking, when that is fully covered in the plea agreement that Sayoc ostensibly read and understood. At one point Sayoc began to ask Judge Rakoff a question and his Federal Defender lawyers cut him off, "conferred" with him and the question went away. Perhaps this is to help him. But it does not seem unreasonable to ask, Is Sayoc competent? Especially when he is pleading, or has pled, guilty to charges involving life imprison plus ten years. Judge Rakoff, in fine form, made fun of the government's assertion of its power even after death. But again the nagging question: is Sayoc competent? Early in the proceeding he said a sentence that no one understood. Then he referred to AA. Then his voice trailed off. How will he be at sentencing? Inner City Press will be there - in the front row or closer. More on this to follow. The day before there was another, lower profile change of plea to guilty on wire fraud charges before SDNY Judge George B. Daniels. But when it was time to allocute there was a problem, or at least a long pause. Defendant Evaldas Rimasauskas read a statement how he set up bank accounts in Latvia and Cyprus and got Victim-1 and Victim-2 to wire money into them. But then Judge Daniels asked, "Why did the victims wire the money?"
Rimasauskas conferred with his lawyer Paul D. Petrus, and with the interpreter. Finally they asked, Can you repeat the question? Judge Daniels did, including What were they promised? "I'm not 100% sure," Rimasauskas said. The government jumped in to say he was not charged with inducing, only with logistics. But he was described as being involved in false contracts to support transfers. Didn't he know what the Victims thought they were buying? The ritual of allocation had broken down. Afterward some said the indictment should have been read more closely. But shouldn't a defendant who is actually guilty of the charge being pled to be able to answer such a question? If not, why even hold these empty ceremonies? We'll have more on this - sentencing is set for July 24 at 10 am. The case is US v. Rimasauskas, 16 cr 841.
Rimasauskas conferred with his lawyer Paul D. Petrus, and with the interpreter. Finally they asked, Can you repeat the question? Judge Daniels did, including What were they promised? "I'm not 100% sure," Rimasauskas said. The government jumped in to say he was not charged with inducing, only with logistics. But he was described as being involved in false contracts to support transfers. Didn't he know what the Victims thought they were buying? The ritual of allocation had broken down. Afterward some said the indictment should have been read more closely. But shouldn't a defendant who is actually guilty of the charge being pled to be able to answer such a question? If not, why even hold these empty ceremonies? We'll have more on this - sentencing is set for July 24 at 10 am. The case is US v. Rimasauskas, 16 cr 841.
Another ceremony: back on March 18 when the marshals brought in another defendant, Ronald Johnson, he signed the change of plea. Then he it was time for him to allocute, he haltingly read out a generic statement written for him by his lawyer. That between January, no June, and October 2018 he "wittingly" sold firearms. Judge Crotty asked, Did your lawyer write your statement? Yes. Do you adopt it? No. No? Oh, yes. The guidelines suggested 97 to 121 months, but on the count pled to, the maximum if five years or sixty months. The case is US v. Johnson, 18 cr 907. Sentencing is set for June 12. Look for the straight five...
