Richard Chichakli, whose Rule 33 Motion for a New Trial remains pending, has filed what he has captioned Comments on Government response to Defendant's Rule 33 Motion. His Pro Se filing, which is somewhat rambling, essentially makes these points:
(1) Rule 404(b) evidence was used as the basis for the conviction. 404(b), of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows the US Attorney to introduce evidence of other, uncharged criminal conduct in a case, to prove motive, opportunity and intent, among other elements, The computer seized from co-defendant Viktor Bout reportedly contained evidence of other crimes Chichakli & Bout were involved in.
(2) Discovery was improperly withheld; Chichakli states that evidence seized from his residence was not made available to him, to assist in his preparation for trial.
(3) There was ineffective assistance of his stand-by counsel. We have previously covered this topic; essentially if you represent yourself, any appointed stand-by counsel's only role is to assist with technical issues, not to try the case.
(4) The Court improperly interfered with the jury function, and jury misconduct was "unquestionably proven." Apparently, a note not relevant to the case was passed between two jurors during the proceedings; the Court did not find it material or prejudicial.
(5) Al Monica's lay testimony was improperly allowed as expert testimony.
(6) Irrelevant evidence was admitted.
Note: a report on the Psychiatric evaluation conducted upon the defendant is due to be delivered on the 23rd of May. Though the public will not have access to the report, the Court may take action after reviewing. is Richard Chichakli not competent to assist in his own defense ?
Thanks again for keeping the Chichakli case in the public domain. My best wishes to Chichakli for his efforts to obtain justice. Hannah K. O'Luthon
ReplyDelete