The US Attorney's Office in New York has filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Richard Chichakli's recently filed Rule 33 Pro Se Motion for a New Trial. I will summarize its arguments:
(1) Chichakli's motion is without merit, and should be denied; it doesn't meet the requirements of existing case law on Rule 33.
(2) The defendant has no claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. He conducted the trial himself, and his standby counsel had no significant role. Also, there is no Constitutional requirement of a right to standby counsel.
(3) The expert testimony of Al Monica was properly admitted.
(4) There was no evidence of juror misconduct; two jurors had exchanged notes, but not about the merits of the case.
(5) The Court's evidentiary rulings were correct, and there were no rulings on whether the defendant was precluded from introducing evidence of his relationship with the US Government and its intelligence agencies.
(6) The jury charges (instructions) were proper.
(7) The Court properly ruled on the Classified Information Procedures Act issues; it reviewed the evidence, and held that it was not relevant, nor helpful to the defense.
(8) The defendant's other claims are meritless.
The Court must rule on this, and the other post-trial pending motions, before sentencing the defendant.
Thanks for the details. Of course, agreement with the theses espoused by the "government team" probably has more to do with official advantages than with rational analysis. Chichakli seems to me to be more in the latter spirit.
ReplyDelete