SDNY COURTHOUSE, July 13 – Iranian banker Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad has been on trial, charged with money laundering and violating US sanctions including through a Venezuelan infrastructure project.
On March 16, after an unprecedented decision to proceed with ten jurors in the jury room and an eleventh at home, deliberating by video conference or FaceTime, he was found guilty on most charges. Live tweeted thread here.
Late on Friday, June 5 this news dump: "Re: United States v. Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejadin, 18 Cr. 224 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits the enclosed application for an order of nolle prosequi of the Indictments filed in this case against Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejadin (“Sadr”) and Bahram Karimi. Respectfully submitted, /s/ GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney"
Then on July 2, under Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss, a news dump of 19 pages, with the names of those responsible (here on Patreon).
Now on July 13, this from Nejad: "the Court’s order should make clear, as the Stevens order did, that there is no conviction, and that the verdict is vacated and has no legal effect. III. The Court Need Not Determine Bad Faith or Hold an Evidentiary Hearing to Vacate the Verdict Under Rule 33(a) and Grant Dismissal Under Rule 48(a) Even if Sadr’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial was not unopposed and now conceded, the underlying grounds for vacatur do not require bad faith. Good or bad faith is irrelevant under Brady. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 438 (1995). The Court need not find bad faith, or conduct any further proceedings, before entering the vacatur and dismissal order. The government has agreed that the Court will have continuing supervisory authority, even after dismissal, to conduct further proceedings to determine if sanctions are appropriate for any ethical violations or prosecutorial misconduct. See Dkt. 352, at 2. Sadr agrees. That is the order in which such proceedings were conducted in the Senator Stevens case: the district court first set the verdict aside and dismissed with prejudice under Rules 33(a) and 48(a)."
We'll have more on this - particularly the continuing withholding / cover up of documents.
Back in March: Judge Nathan: "The jury has reached a verdict.... The juror on video conference will stay on until he hears from me further." Jury entering! Judge Nathan: "I'll ask the foreperson. Has the jury asked a unanimous verdict?" Yes.
Judge Nathan: Count 1, how do you find the defendant, with conspiring to defraud the US? Guilty. Count 2: Guilty.
Judge Nathan (after sidebar) "On Count 3, bank fraud, how do you find? Guilty. Under 1344, prong 1, neither (?) Count 4: bank fraud conspiracy: Under 1344, prong 1, neither (?) Under 1344, prong 2, guilty
Judge Nathan: Count 5: Guilty. Count 6, money laundering conspiracy: Not guilty. Now polling jurors: one? 2? [soon the virtual juror] Let me confirm the verdict with Juror Number 7... I have confirmed it is his verdict. I will dismiss the jury.
After Judge Nathan had declined to sent Sadr to jail pending sentencing but instead converted him to home detention, Inner City Press rushed out to do a Periscope video live stream (here) and try to ask Sadr a question. His lawyers left in a yellow cab, then he left. Inner City Press asked, Are you going to appeal? He answered softly, Of course. Then he too got in a yellow cab.
On March 16 amid the Coronavirus COVID-19 crisis, jury deliberations ran into a problem. SDNY Judge Nathan proposed proceeding with ten jurors in the jury room and one connected from outside by video.
Assistant US Attorney Michael Krause objected. But Judge Nathan said there are extraordinary circumstances and she would proceed thusly. Inner City Press live tweeted it all: thread here. More on Patreon here.
Ali Sadr is represented by lawyer Reid Weingarten of Steptoe & Johnson and, on November 25 as reported by Inner City Press by Brian M. Heberlig before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Alison J. Nathan.
On Sunday, March 8 [alongside this song] the US Attorney Office which closed its case on March 9 past 9 pm submitted a letter, below.
On March 12 in closing arguments, this happened: As jury charge continues: Judge Nathan has just deployed the old saw about circumstantial evidence, that if people come into a windowless courtroom with wet umbrella, jurors are free to conclude it is raining outside.
But what about Iran sanctions?
AUSA Krause: The defendant knew what he was doing violated US sanctions against Iran. The defendant is charged with six felonies. Mohammad Sadr was the beneficiary of the payments. ...
It's good to have money, in essence. This is not how lower income defendants are often treated in the SDNY. The case is USA v. Nejad, 18-cr-00224 (Nathan). More on Patreon here
