by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, April 7 – On a daily basis, defendants are brought into court and either get appointed counsel or choose to pay a private attorney, if they can.
But this system can be gamed.
March 30, 2023 saw "charges against DIONISIO FIGUEROA, a/k/a “Dionicio,” an employee of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“the SDNY District Court”), and TELESFORO DEL VALLE, JR., a/k/a “Ted,” a criminal defense attorney practicing in the SDNY District Court and elsewhere, for their participation in a scheme in which FIGUEROA referred criminal defendants to DEL VALLE and encouraged those defendants to retain DEL VALLE as counsel in exchange for cash payments from DEL VALLE to FIGUEROA. FIGUEROA was arrested, and DEL VALLE surrendered earlier today, and both will be presented before United States Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause in the SDNY District courthouse in White Plains, New York."
Inner City Press, which closely covers the Magistrate Court, had in 2022 reported the investigation against Del Valle, and on March 30 wondered why the defendants were presented in White Plains.
On April 6, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Mae A. D'Agostino ruled, "On April 5, 2023, Attorney Karloff Commissiong submitted a letter request and financial affidavit for Defendant Dionisio Figueroa. In the letter request, Mr. Commissiong, who appeared for Defendant Figueroa at his initial appearance as retained counsel, asks the Court to find that Defendant Figueroa is financially eligible for CJA counsel and that Mr. Commissiong be appointed as his CJA counsel in the interests of judicial economy Before the Court makes any decision regarding these requests, Mr. Commissiong is directed to file a notice of appearance on the docket or make a motion to withdraw as counsel as directed by the Pre Trial Order. Second, Mr. Commissiong is directed to submit a financial affidavit that is actually signed by Defendant Figueroa (as opposed to an electronic signature affixed by Mr. Commissiong). Upon receipt of the properly executed financial affidavit, the Court will determine whether Defendant Figueroa is financially eligible for court-appointed counsel. One final note, it is well settled that, when an individual applies for court-appointed counsel, that individual is generally not entitled to the counsel of his choosing. Generally, the Court will appoint the Federal Defender's Office as counsel, unless some conflict would prevent them from taking the case. If the Federal Defender's Office is unavailable, the individual would then be appointed randomly assigned CJA counsel pursuant to the Southern District's established procedures. See United States v. Parker, 439 F.3d 81, 105 (2d Cir. 2006) ("The 'fully retained' inquiry protects these rules by preventing attorneys from using their initial appearances as retained counsel to secure CJA appointments outside the Plan and by preventing defendants from entering unrealistic retainer agreements to circumvent the Plan's prohibition against selection of a particular CJA attorney"). While there may be instances where it is in the interests of judicial economy to permit a formerly retained attorney to continue with a case as CJA counsel, the Court is unlikely to find that this is such a unique case given the early stages of this case and given the charges set forth in the indictment."
For now, as of April 7, Dionisio Figueroa has Commissiong, retained.
The case is US v. Figueroa et al.. 23-cr-161 (D'Agostino)
***
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.
Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com