The Italian prosecutor has asked the Italian jury for a conviction and sentence of life. New York Times November 21, 2009. The prosecutors have also argued that she and her co-defendant helped contaminate the crime scene and then falsely accused a third person of the crime.
"Prosecutors claimed that the murder weapon was a 6 ½-inch kitchen knife found at Mr. Sollecito’s house with Ms. Knox’s DNA on the handle and Ms. Kercher’s DNA on the tip.
Defense lawyers for Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito claimed that DNA evidence was not strong enough to link the two students to the crime. They argue that Mr. Guede was the sole assailant. Mr. Guede was sentenced last fall to 30 years for murder and sexual assault. His appeal is under way. Ms. Knox has said she spent the night of Ms. Kercher’s murder at Mr. Sollecito’s house, smoking marijuana and watching the movie “Amélie” on his computer. Prosecution witnesses said there was no evidence that the computer was used that night. "
LAW OFFICES OF LINDA FRIEDMAN RAMIREZ P.A.
- Federal and Extradition Defense
- Tampa Bay, Florida, United States
- 727-551-0751 * Since 1981 * Representing Foreign Nationals: State and Federal Criminal Defense, Regulatory Matters, and Administrative Proceedings. For additional information go to Linda Friedman Ramirez P.A. at: www.spanishlaw.com
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Extradition: Polanski's US Lawyers Issue Statement; French Lawyer Not Authorized to Speak on Behalf of Defendant
The ABC News reports that the US lawyers for Roman Polanski have issued a statement: French Lawyer is not authorized spokesman for Polanski. November 20, 2009.
" A French attorney for Roman Polanski who said the film director would not return voluntarily to the United States to face child sex charges is not authorized to speak in the case, Polanski's U.S. attorneys said on Friday.
Polanski, 76, is being held in a Swiss prison pending a decision on a U.S. extradition request. He fled the United States in 1978 while awaiting sentencing for having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl, and he was arrested in September in Switzerland on a U.S. warrant.
The director's French lawyer, Herve Temime, told Le Figaro newspaper in an interview published on Friday that Polanski would not return voluntarily to the United States. But Los Angeles attorneys Douglas Dalton, Bart Dalton and Chad Hummel said in a statement that Temime's comments were not authorized by Polanski. "The French lawyers do not represent him in the case and do not speak for him about it," the statement said."
" A French attorney for Roman Polanski who said the film director would not return voluntarily to the United States to face child sex charges is not authorized to speak in the case, Polanski's U.S. attorneys said on Friday.
Polanski, 76, is being held in a Swiss prison pending a decision on a U.S. extradition request. He fled the United States in 1978 while awaiting sentencing for having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl, and he was arrested in September in Switzerland on a U.S. warrant.
The director's French lawyer, Herve Temime, told Le Figaro newspaper in an interview published on Friday that Polanski would not return voluntarily to the United States. But Los Angeles attorneys Douglas Dalton, Bart Dalton and Chad Hummel said in a statement that Temime's comments were not authorized by Polanski. "The French lawyers do not represent him in the case and do not speak for him about it," the statement said."
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Extradition: 11th Circuit Agrees Robbery Not Political Offense; SOL not Expired
In Pajkanovic v United States November 16, 2009, the 11th. Circuit ruled against the defendant, seeking to prevent his extradition to Bosnia Herzegovenia.
The Appeals court agreed that the defendant had not established that the robbery charge was a political offense, and the fact that the offense was committed after the war, was not helpful to his claim. The court also agreed that the relevant statute of limitations was that of the United States pursuant to the terms of the treaty.
"Here, Pajkanovic offered no evidence to connect his aggravated robbery to a violent political disturbance. As an initial matter, at the extradition hearing, Under Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we are bound by cases decided by the former Fifth Circuit before October 1, 1981. Pajkanovic’s brother testified that the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina ended in late 1995, and documents showed that Pajkanovic’s crime was committed in July 1997. Even if Pajkanovic established that hostilities continued after the war, he offered
no evidence to show that his aggravated robbery was incidental to such hostilities.
The Appeals court agreed that the defendant had not established that the robbery charge was a political offense, and the fact that the offense was committed after the war, was not helpful to his claim. The court also agreed that the relevant statute of limitations was that of the United States pursuant to the terms of the treaty.
"Here, Pajkanovic offered no evidence to connect his aggravated robbery to a violent political disturbance. As an initial matter, at the extradition hearing, Under Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we are bound by cases decided by the former Fifth Circuit before October 1, 1981. Pajkanovic’s brother testified that the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina ended in late 1995, and documents showed that Pajkanovic’s crime was committed in July 1997. Even if Pajkanovic established that hostilities continued after the war, he offered
no evidence to show that his aggravated robbery was incidental to such hostilities.
The decision of the Cantonal Court in Zenica described the robbery, but in no way indicated that it was political in nature. Furthermore, Pajkanovic’s brother testified that he did not know the details about Pajkanovic’s offense or the victim. Therefore, Pajkanovic has shown no error in the magistrate judge’s determination that his offense did not qualify for the political-offense exception to the Treaty. See Treaty, art. VI; Escobedo, 623 F.2d at 1104 (holding that the petitioners were not entitled to a political-offense exception under a treaty with Mexico because they “[did] not contend, and the evidence offered at the extradition hearing [did] not show, that the charges arising out of the alleged attempted kidnapping were committed in the course of and incidental to a violent political disturbance”);
Extradition: Denver Man Maintains Innocence and Argentina has Declined Extradition to Colorado
The Denver Post.com discusses the case of an American previously charged with murder of his former wife, charges dismissed, who is now living in Argentina, with a new murder charge pending in Colorado. The defendant appears to have been successful in convincing authorities in Argentina that the charges against him are without merit.
"The U.S. Justice Department continues its five-year quest to extradite him in the case in which Denver police say they have "overwhelming" evidence that he killed his wife and staged a suicide scene. Argentine courts have refused, saying they have not received sufficient assurances from Colorado that Sonnenfeld would not be executed for the crime — an allowable exception to the extradition treaty between the nations. The Denver district attorney's office has pledged that Sonnenfeld would not be executed and is unsure what other evidence it can provide. The DA's staff promises to keep pursuing extradition."
"The U.S. Justice Department continues its five-year quest to extradite him in the case in which Denver police say they have "overwhelming" evidence that he killed his wife and staged a suicide scene. Argentine courts have refused, saying they have not received sufficient assurances from Colorado that Sonnenfeld would not be executed for the crime — an allowable exception to the extradition treaty between the nations. The Denver district attorney's office has pledged that Sonnenfeld would not be executed and is unsure what other evidence it can provide. The DA's staff promises to keep pursuing extradition."
Extradition: Bahama Court Dismisses Appeal, Extradition To go Forward for Human Smuggling
An appeals court has ruled against Henry Pierre, arrested as a fugitive in the Bahamas, furthering the likelihood that Pierre will be returned to the United States, to face charges in federal court of human smuggling. The Bahamas Journal.
"Henry Pierre was challenging Senior Supreme Court Justice Jon Isaacs’ previous ruling, which refused a habeas corpus application. Pierre allegedly helped to load 16 illegal immigrants onto a boat headed to Florida. He was also indicted by a US grand jury for his alleged role in the trafficking scheme. US Border Patrol officers arrested Pierre’s alleged co-conspirators, Demetrius Saunders and Geno Rolle, after they found 16 undocumented immigrants on a beach in St. Lucie County, Florida on March 23, 2006."
Monday, November 16, 2009
Extradition: Magistrate Releases Priest Pending Extradition Hearing
The federal magistrate considering the extradition of a priest to face child sexual abuse charges in Ireland, has released the accused on conditions. The US Government on behalf of Ireland had previously opposed released; but its position changed at the hearing on November 16, 2009, with the result that the magistrate was persuaded to release Mr. Markey. Southbend Tribune. "In a brief hearing today, the U.S. government reversed its position and agreed not to object to an Irish priest's release from jail on bond, pending the resolution of his extradition proceedings. Francis Markey, 81, was arrested last week at his home on Miller Court in South Bend and is facing possible extradition to Ireland on charges that he raped a teenage boy there in 1968."
Editor's Note: An accused facing extradition abroad will generally need to show "special circumstances" in order to obtain release. Markey is 81 years old.
Editor's Note: An accused facing extradition abroad will generally need to show "special circumstances" in order to obtain release. Markey is 81 years old.
OffShore Banking: Due to Voluntary Disclosures, Swiss Info to US May be Limited
The US Ambassador to Switzerland claims that UBS might have to provide only a limited amount of information to the US, as a result of the large number of voluntary disclosures that have been made by account holders through an "amnesty" program. AFP.
"In the case of UBS, we actually got a good compromise, where UBS agreed to share the names of up to 4,450 American citizens who have bank accounts here, but only after an amnesty programme in the United States," Beyer said on World Radio Switzerland.
"That amnesty programme by the way has already turned up more than 9,000 Americans who have come forward voluntarily to talk about their Swiss bank accounts."
"So I guess our hope once we see the numbers is that the actual number of bank records that will be shared will be very very small," added Beyer.
"In the case of UBS, we actually got a good compromise, where UBS agreed to share the names of up to 4,450 American citizens who have bank accounts here, but only after an amnesty programme in the United States," Beyer said on World Radio Switzerland.
"That amnesty programme by the way has already turned up more than 9,000 Americans who have come forward voluntarily to talk about their Swiss bank accounts."
"So I guess our hope once we see the numbers is that the actual number of bank records that will be shared will be very very small," added Beyer.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Summons served on Subsidiary sufficient to initiate Prosecution
The District Court in U.S. v. Chitron Electronics Co. Ltd.--- F.Supp.2d ----, D.Mass.,2009 was asked to consider whether service of summons in a criminal case in Massachusetts to a domestic Massachusetts corporation, was sufficient for purposes of jurisdiction over the parent Chinese corporation. The Massachusetts and Chinese corporations as well as three individuals are accused of violating US Export controls, by filing false reports and evading controls. The original US Department of Justice Press Release reported:
" Three nationals of the People’s Republic of China were arrested and charged Friday in U.S. District Court with conspiring to file, and causing others to file, false export control documents in violation of Executive Order 13222, Export Administration Regulations, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Complaint charges that from not later than July 9, 2005 and continuing through in or about December 2008, three current officers and employees of Chitron Electronics, Inc. (“CHITRON-US”), a Massachusetts corporation, filed and caused the filing of Shipper’s Export Declarations with the U.S. government which falsely identified the end users and ultimate destination of U.S. origin goods that CHITRON-US shipped overseas.
Editor's note: The trial court's analysis of the jurisdiction issue relied in large part on the factors associated with jurisdiction for purposes of civil litigation.
"The case law discussing the specific issue of personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations in the criminal context is surprisingly sparse and poorly developed. The two cases that are most on point involve the enforcement of grand jury subpoenas issued to foreign corporations. In a case involving efforts by an Independent Counsel to subpoena records of foreign companies that possibly violated United States law by selling arms to Iran and providing assistance to the Nicaraguan contras, the D.C. Circuit rejected the argument that personal jurisdiction over the corporations was achieved simply because the court had personal jurisdiction over the company's representative. In re Sealed Case, 832 F.2d 1268, 1272-73 (D.C.Cir.1987), abrogated on other grounds by Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988). Rather, it held that the government needed to provide sufficient evidence of personal jurisdiction over the corporations themselves: “A federal court has personal jurisdiction over a corporation or other business concern with respect to its activities or effects within the United States if that corporation has certain ‘minimum contacts' with the United States.” Id. at 1273-74 (citing Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)).
“In the case of foreign companies that do not regularly do business here, jurisdiction may be founded on conduct abroad that causes injury within the United States.” Id. at 1274. The D.C. Circuit also suggested that the government could establish personal jurisdiction if it shows that the agent “has done business in the United States on behalf of the companies sufficient to give an American court jurisdiction over them.” Id. at 1273 n. 3.
In the second case, also involving enforcement of grand jury subpoenas, the Second Circuit held that the United States has personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation accused of conspiring to violate tax laws where at least one overt act occurred in the United States and where there was service of the grand jury subpoena upon the corporation's officers within the territorial boundaries of the United States. Matter of Marc Rich & Co., A.G., 707 F.2d 663, 666-68 (2d Cir.1983) (citing Melia v. United States, 667 F.2d 300, 304 (2d Cir.1981)); id. at 667 (“[W]e have subscribed to the ‘modern notion’ that where a person has sufficiently caused adverse consequences within a state, he may be subjected to its judicial jurisdiction so long as he is given adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.”). See also United States v. Clark, 435 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that, “to comply with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, extraterritorial application of federal criminal statutes requires the government to demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the defendant and the United States ‘so that such application would not be arbitrary or fundamentally unfair.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245, 248-49 (9th Cir.1990)).
Under this case law, to establish personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation charged with a crime, the government has the burden of demonstrating (via the indictment or affidavits) (1) the “effects” necessary to establish personal jurisdiction; and (2) “minimum contacts” between the corporation (or its agent) and the United States.
" Three nationals of the People’s Republic of China were arrested and charged Friday in U.S. District Court with conspiring to file, and causing others to file, false export control documents in violation of Executive Order 13222, Export Administration Regulations, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Complaint charges that from not later than July 9, 2005 and continuing through in or about December 2008, three current officers and employees of Chitron Electronics, Inc. (“CHITRON-US”), a Massachusetts corporation, filed and caused the filing of Shipper’s Export Declarations with the U.S. government which falsely identified the end users and ultimate destination of U.S. origin goods that CHITRON-US shipped overseas.
Editor's note: The trial court's analysis of the jurisdiction issue relied in large part on the factors associated with jurisdiction for purposes of civil litigation.
"The case law discussing the specific issue of personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations in the criminal context is surprisingly sparse and poorly developed. The two cases that are most on point involve the enforcement of grand jury subpoenas issued to foreign corporations. In a case involving efforts by an Independent Counsel to subpoena records of foreign companies that possibly violated United States law by selling arms to Iran and providing assistance to the Nicaraguan contras, the D.C. Circuit rejected the argument that personal jurisdiction over the corporations was achieved simply because the court had personal jurisdiction over the company's representative. In re Sealed Case, 832 F.2d 1268, 1272-73 (D.C.Cir.1987), abrogated on other grounds by Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988). Rather, it held that the government needed to provide sufficient evidence of personal jurisdiction over the corporations themselves: “A federal court has personal jurisdiction over a corporation or other business concern with respect to its activities or effects within the United States if that corporation has certain ‘minimum contacts' with the United States.” Id. at 1273-74 (citing Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)).
“In the case of foreign companies that do not regularly do business here, jurisdiction may be founded on conduct abroad that causes injury within the United States.” Id. at 1274. The D.C. Circuit also suggested that the government could establish personal jurisdiction if it shows that the agent “has done business in the United States on behalf of the companies sufficient to give an American court jurisdiction over them.” Id. at 1273 n. 3.
In the second case, also involving enforcement of grand jury subpoenas, the Second Circuit held that the United States has personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation accused of conspiring to violate tax laws where at least one overt act occurred in the United States and where there was service of the grand jury subpoena upon the corporation's officers within the territorial boundaries of the United States. Matter of Marc Rich & Co., A.G., 707 F.2d 663, 666-68 (2d Cir.1983) (citing Melia v. United States, 667 F.2d 300, 304 (2d Cir.1981)); id. at 667 (“[W]e have subscribed to the ‘modern notion’ that where a person has sufficiently caused adverse consequences within a state, he may be subjected to its judicial jurisdiction so long as he is given adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.”). See also United States v. Clark, 435 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that, “to comply with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, extraterritorial application of federal criminal statutes requires the government to demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the defendant and the United States ‘so that such application would not be arbitrary or fundamentally unfair.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245, 248-49 (9th Cir.1990)).
Under this case law, to establish personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation charged with a crime, the government has the burden of demonstrating (via the indictment or affidavits) (1) the “effects” necessary to establish personal jurisdiction; and (2) “minimum contacts” between the corporation (or its agent) and the United States.
Pablo Escobar: Son Apologizes to Family of Galan, New Film
San Francisco Chronicle. "The former Juan Pablo Escobar, who was 16 when his father was shot to death in 1993, is now trading anonymity for what he calls conscience, asking forgiveness for his father's reign of terror in the documentary "Sins of My Father," which opens at film festivals in Argentina on Thursday and Amsterdam on Nov. 19. In a rare telephone interview last week with the Associated Press, he claimed his father's fortune is gone and that he wasn't part of his criminal enterprise. He said he went public with his apology to the sons of two politicians his father ordered assassinated because of the pain his father wrought as a billionaire drug trafficker." Semana.com on the Meeting between the two men, October 20, 2009. See Brief Video of the Encounter between Marroquin and Galan.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: Acquitted of FCPA, but Convicted of Public Corruption; 13 Years
William Jefferson was sentenced today, November 13, 2009, to thirteen years prison. He had been acquitted of a count alleging Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. NOLA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
