Allison Mack’s lawyers – on behalf of all defendants – inform court of defense motions expected by mid-November

It looks like Allison Mack is “all-in.”  Maybe she doesn’t have a choice. The charges against her are serious and perhaps she has not been offered a plea bargain she can even remotely live with.

On October 5th, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis ordered the defense team to inform the court about pretrial motions the defendants intend to file.  In response, Mack’s attorneys – William F. McGovern and Sean S. Buckleywriting on behalf of all defendants – described the nature and extent of the motions the defendants intend to file.

The references to the counts are in the superseding indictment – which you can read here: 

The expected motions are:

1. Dismissal of Counts One, Two, Four, Five, and Six of the Indictment for failure to plead the government’s allegations with sufficient particularity to meet the constitutional requirements of the Indictment Clause of the Fifth Amendment and for failure to state an offense.

(I am not a lawyer, but it is my opinion that if the judge agrees with this assessment, it is more likely the government will be permitted to amend the indictment, as opposed to dismissing it.)

2. Dismissal of Count One for failing to allege predicate acts that are sufficiently related to constitute a “pattern” of racketeering activity.

(There have to be acts that create the pattern; the defense will argue these acts, even if proven, do not add up to racketeering.)

3. Dismissal of Count One in its entirety as impermissibly duplicitous for its failure to allege a single conspiracy or, in the alternative, to dismiss certain predicate acts as impermissibly duplicitous.

(It is my understanding that a duplicitous count is one where more than one offense is alleged in a single count of an indictment – which, in effect, gives the prosecution two bites or more at the same apple.  This is a form of double jeopardy.  A count in an indictment should not be an “either or” but a “guilty or not guilty.”  A duplicitous count can be dismissed by the judge, or the judge, I believe, can permit the count to be amended so it only alleges one offense, or split into two counts. I know of one case where a duplicitous count was allowed to stand based on the argument that it can be cured at sentencing. Defendants convicted on duplicitous counts might be eligible to have their verdict voided.)

4. Dismissal of certain predicate acts charged under Count One for failure to allege the essential elements of the charged offenses.

(Every crime has certain essential elements. If all of them are not met, there is no crime.)

5. Dismissal of Count Seven for lack of venue, as it alleges that the charged conduct took place only “within the Northern District of New York”.

(The Eastern District of New York is prosecuting this case. The indictment reads the crime occurred in the Northern District.)

6. A bill of particulars.

{A bill of particulars is a detailed, formal, written statement of charges – a formal request to the court for more detailed information. The judge may grant this or may rule that the indictment is sufficient to inform the defense of the charges.]

7. Compelling the disclosure of exculpatory information and/or information material to the preparation of the defense.

(This is called “Brady Material” – and puts the burden on the prosecution to tender any and all evidence that they believe may be exculpatory to the defense. I believe this is usually granted.)

8. Permission for certain foreign witnesses to testify live at trial via closed-circuit television  (CCTV) or, in the alternative, via deposition.

(Hard to know who these witnesses may be, but one of them could be Sara Bronfman -Igtet. Also hard to know whether the prosecution will object to this or if it will be granted.)

***

Mack’s attorneys go on to write that “The defendants will coordinate amongst themselves in order to streamline the motions and, wherever possible, make the motions jointly on behalf of multiple defendants.”

They also note that there are “ten separate racketeering acts alleged in the Indictment, which span more than a decade and reference disparate conduct”.  This might suggest that “the individual interests of certain defendants” may not be disparate.

In addition, due to “the complexity of the issues,” attorneys for Mack write, “it will be necessary to file multiple memoranda of law in support of the …. motions and likely will seek relief from the 25-page limit contained in Your Honor’s individual practices for any memorandum filed on behalf of multiple defendants.”

Evidently, the judge normally limits motions to no more than 25 pages and the defense may need more space to make their arguments.

The defense anticipates filing the motions by November 16, 2018.

It has been said that, in federal court, motion practice is extremely “thin” — meaning that few motions are granted and this suggests that none of the requested dismissals of counts are likely to happen.

One might say the attorneys are “going through the motions.”

Happily, while so doing, they may nevertheless bill for all hours they are preparing those unlikely-to-succeed motions.

As one legal observer pointed out recently, “Gee, that Executive Success Programs ‘technology’ really works — for attorneys!”

 

About the author

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is the founder of the FrankReport, publisher and editor-in-chief of Artvoice, The Niagara Falls Reporter, Front Page and the South Buffalo News.

4 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • Sara is a faithful person but why should she subject herself to the dishonest US system? It is a criminal system and it is wrong for Sara to come into that web. She is right to stay away just like a beautiful butterfly is smart to stay away from the spider web

    • Sara B. is a beautiful butterfly who launders dirty money and is possibly involved in human trafficking.

      But if Sara B. finds America to be oppressive, she and her husband Basit Igtet are always welcome to move to lovely Libya.
      I understand ISIS-controlled Benghazi is lovely in the winter.
      ISIS just loves half-Jewish heiresses involved in the liquor trade.

  • Lawyers, when they are desperate, throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

    ———————–
    “They also note that there are “ten separate racketeering acts alleged in the Indictment, which span more than a decade and reference disparate conduct”.

    Most RICO cases by their nature involve many crimes committed over many years.
    ———————
    8 Permission for certain foreign witnesses to testify live at trial via closed-circuit television (CCTV) or, in the alternative, via deposition.

    (Hard to know who these witnesses may be, but one of them could be Sara Bronfman-Igtet. Also hard to know whether the prosecution will object to this or if it will be granted.)

    Sara B. must be afraid of showing her face in America.
    What could she be indicted for?
    MONEY LAUNDERING?
    HUMAN TRAFFICKING?
    SEX TRFICKING?

    Whatever Sara B. Is indicted for Allison Mack is vulnerable to indictment, too.
    After all Sara called Ms. Mack and Kim Constable “my girls.”
    From the comments sidebar on the right hand side of the picture
    “sarabronfmanLove my girls! #friendship”
    https://www.instagram.com/p/BMZmPaKAIre/?taken-by=allisonmack729

    Love My Girls.
    What did Allison and Kim do for Sara B to make them Sara’s girls?

  • I can’t see the prosecution allowing foreign witnesses to testify via live video. Im sure these people (Sarah Bromfman, Salinas etc…) are terrified of being arrested. Even if there aren’t warrants out for their arrest, it’s much easier to lie to a camera as opposed to a highly skilled ADA.

Archives

     
     

CONTACT

frankparlato@gmail.com
Phone / Text: (716) 990-5740
%d bloggers like this: