Kenneth Rijock

Kenneth Rijock

Sunday, June 22, 2014

RICHARD CHICHAKLI MOVES TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND FOR NEW TRIAL BASED UPON PERJURY OF GOVERNMENT WOITNESS


Richard Chichakli, in yet another Pro Se post-trial filing, has moved to vacate the judgment entered by the Court after the jury verdict, pursuant to Rule 33(b)(1), F.R. Crim. P., and has requested a new trial, based upon what he labels as newly-discovered evidence. he alleges that government witness Henry Gayer, who was an officer at the Miami aviation firm where Chichakli attempted to purchase an aircraft, committed perjury.

To summarize the motion:

(1) The defendant asserts that the government witness, Gayer, perjured himself in his trial testimony.
(2) That his testimony hurt the defendant.
(3) That the testimony was material in obtaining a conviction.

Chichakli says that Gayer lied, when he stated under oath that he did not know about the defendant's OFAC status, which precludes business transactions with US persons, and that the Government knew that he was lying. The defendant states that the trial contains admissions by Gayer, to the effect that he knew about Chichakli's SDN status, and was aware of the blocking order against the defendant.

According to Chichakli, the Government was complacent with the lies, in order to sway the jury into convicting him, using false testimony. Therefore, he argues, he was wrongfully convicted. There are a number of pending motions, most filed post-trial, and most filed by the Defendant.

Where newly-discovered evidence is alleged, the defendant in a federal criminal case has, pursuant to the rule, three (3) years after entry of the verdict to move for a new trial. Whether the contrary trial testimony constitutes newly-discovered evidence will be determined by the Court, but if there is an adverse ruling, the motion will probably be dismissed, as any other grounds for a new trial must be filed within fourteen days after the verdict, according to Rule 33(b)(2).
________________________________________________________________________
* United States vs. Bout, et al, Case No.: 09-cr-01002-WHP (SD NY).






No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.