By Kristin Keeffe
Raniere built his Rule 33 motion for a new trial almost entirely around the “findings” of a retired FBI agent named Richard Kiper.
After his conviction, Keith hired Kiper to review the digital evidence the prosecution used at his trial to prove Keith took with his camera and possessed on a hard drive pornographic pictures of 15-year-old “Camila.”
Based on Kiper’s ‘findings,’ Raniere, in his Rule 33 motion, claims the FBI tampered with the metadata of the pornography and planted evidence on a hard drive after they seized it from Raniere’s library.
What it takes to win a Rule 33 motion
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure grants a convicted defendant the right to motion for a new trial on various grounds, including “newly discovered evidence.”
Quoting US v. Owens, a case also involving possession of child pornography, Assistant US Attorney Tanya Hajjar wrote in her opposition to Keith’s Rule 33 motion, “For a court to grant a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the defendant must demonstrate that:
(1) The evidence be newly discovered after trial;
(2) Facts are alleged from which the court can infer due diligence on the part of the movant to obtain the evidence;
(3) The evidence is material;
(4) The evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; and
(5) The evidence would likely result in an acquittal.”
New evidence will result in acquittal?
Looking carefully at these points, it is clear Keith’s motion cannot succeed.
Let’s focus on two key points: Was the evidence [Kiper’s findings] newly discovered after the trial, and would it have led to an acquittal if Keith’s trial counsel had presented this evidence to the jury?
The prosecution gave Keith’s three trial attorneys – Marc Agnifilo, Paul DerOhannesian, and Teny Geragos – and their forensic expert – copies of the hard drive evidence on October 5, 2018.
The prosecution gave the same evidence to 12 other defense attorneys for Keith’s five codefendants.
Clare Bronfman with her attorneys, Ronald Sullivan and Duncan Levin.
If 15 of the most expensive, renowned criminal defense attorneys from across the US, with unlimited budgets for support staff, experts, and discovery, failed to evaluate the evidence when they had it, it’s not new.
The motion fails no matter what Kiper alleges he found within that hard drive evidence two years later. That’s all there is to it.
A Rule 33 motion based on newly discovered evidence is not merely an opportunity to re-litigate the case with the same evidence, but rather a chance to present something new that wasn’t available at the time of the trial.
Newly discovered evidence refers to evidence that:
-
- It was discovered after the trial.
- It could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence before or during the trial.
- It is material that would probably produce an acquittal or a different verdict upon retrial.
Even If It Were New….
Would this new evidence, were it newly discovered, lead to an acquittal?
On June 19, 2019, a Brooklyn federal jury convicted Raniere of
- sex trafficking,
- attempted sex trafficking,
- sex trafficking conspiracy,
- forced labor conspiracy
- Wire fraud conspiracy.
- racketeering,
- racketeering conspiracy,
The prosecution alleged 11 predicate acts in the racketeering charge.
Only three of the 11 predicate acts involved the alleged “newly discovered” evidence. One act of possession of child pornography and two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor.
The other eight Racketeering Acts (Identity Theft [twice], Computer Hacking, Video Alteration in Civil Case, Trafficking for Labor, State Law Extortion, Sex Trafficking and Forced Labor) had nothing to do with child porn charges.
The alleged newly discovered evidence of “tampered” child porn metadata also does not affect Raniere’s conviction on the other serious charges:
- sex trafficking,
- attempted sex trafficking,
- sex trafficking conspiracy,
- forced labor conspiracy
- Wire fraud conspiracy.
No matter what Kiper alleges about the digital evidence of child pornography, Keith is still guilty of five serious felony counts and eight other predicate acts of racketeering – all unrelated to the charges concerning Camila.
So, no acquittal.
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
I think KR has paid his time and suffered enough. He lived in the SHU for almost a year. He did his time. Let him go. He was not alone. Others have served their time and got out. And there are some like Ms Lauren Salzman, who helped KR keep a girl hostage did no time.
The fact that others have gotten away with no punishment or too little punishment does not mean that Raniere should be punished with the same leniency.
Raniere is not going anywhere, especially he does not decide anything himself. He either stays where he is or he is taken to another place. Raniere’s whereabouts are determined by others. But he will always remain locked up.
Allan, I agree. Lauren Salzman is truly a sick, depraved person. She was 100% part of the group whom psychologically tortured Dani. Lauren should have locked up but she flipped om Vanturd.
Pilgrim-
Do you still want to stick to the chaste Lauren Salzman or has the Mayflower moved on?
I never wanted to!
That was Danielle. But the Mayflower has moved on.
Whatever Mr.Stansfield!
You’re such the sneaky devil. You must be board of playing the
Anti-anti-cultist….
Still riding the bus and living with mother?
Great Job Kristen👏, I hope you are doing well and that your treatments are not too ruff on you , please keep the faith.
A new filing by Raniere’s lawyers
Don’t be fooled by how convincing it sounds. Their arguments don’t matter
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6374665/united-states-v-raniere/
Raniere’s 11th hour long shot out on a limb desperate last-ditch Hail Mary shot in the dark shows what fishing in the air, casting about wildly on thin ice in dire straits looks like for a sex trafficking cult leader.
Thank you, Kristin, for clear perspective on complex legal issues.
Even if Raniere is guilty of other crimes, any form of evidence tampering undermines our justice system. But was there evidence tampering? Krisitn seems to think Keith is bullshitting us on that one. Still this is part of the true justice system that even a creepy guy like Raniere gets his day in court and then another day to appeal and even then one more shot. Rule 33.
The article clearly states that even if the new evidence was true, it wouldn’t change the outcome. Case closed.
I’ve been following the Raniere case for a while, and it never fails to amaze me how twisted the legal strategies become. Does he have a chance to get out?
I think Kristin’s breakdown is clear. Even if Raniere’s claims were true, they don’t change the outcome of the trial.
What you missing is he would have walked if the jury knew the FBI tampered. He gets a new trial if he proves they tampered which I don’t know. It’s in the evidence.
Even if the child porn evidence was “tampered”, there’s still the other charges he’s guilty of? Can someone explain? How does he get a new trial? .
This is a good breakdown. Thanks, Kristin, I finally understand a Rule 33 motion. It’s easy once you understand the context. This fool is never gonna get out of prison. I feel bad for Suneel. What a smart kid wasting his life on his sucker.
Rule 33 motions are rarely successful. It’s hard to imagine that 15 top attorneys would overlook evidence.
I think she used her, at home training to climb her social ladder and in return save her own ass. A lot of people do it. At least she’s writing again. She does have insight that interests me,so as long as she’s breaking down the Raniere jigsaw puzzle I’ll read it.
Ms. Keeffe has clearly learned to frame a potent legal argument.
As a follower of the NXIVM saga for a long time, my understanding is that she is essentially self-taught in law, rather than coming from a prestigious university and law school. And, if we are being honest, she spent years using those legal skills primarily to persecute anyone who Raniere perceived as a danger, or even just as insufficiently worshipful.
The question is, can Ms. Keeffe imagine an alternative life for herself, where circumstances were such that she would not have entered the Raniere-World, and just become a lawyer? Maybe just not having whatever chance encounter exposed her to Raniere-World ?
And if we’re being honest…yep