Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
PETER CORNELL, also known as King J and King Jay RUSSELL LLOYD KILFOIL, also known as King Peaceful and Jonathan Hernandez RANDOLPH LEIF KILFOIL, also known as King Paul SAMUEL ISAAC VELASQUEZ, also known as King Hype IRVIN VASQUEZ, also known as King Dice CARLOS COLEMAN, also known as King Spanky ERNESTO WILSON, also known as King Yayo : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 1:11CR402-1 SUPERSEDING 1:11CR402-2
GOVERNMENTS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 615 NOW COMES the United States of America, by and through
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina, James M. Trusty, Chief, Organized Crime & Gang Section, Department of Justice, and the undersigned attorneys, and files its Motion for Sanctions for Violation of Rule 615. I. RELEVANT FACTS On October 22, 2012, jury trial began in the above-entitled case. Prior to of opening all statements the government case moved for
sequestration
witnesses,
except
agents
Douglas
Rentz, John Lowes, and Nicholas Combs. The Court granted this motion and ordered that after opening statement, all witnesses
for the government and all witnesses for the defense be subject to sequestration pursuant to Rule 615. Reverend Johnson, a
defense witness, was among those individuals in the courtroom at the time the Court entered this order. After evidence began in this case, substance of in-court testimony was improperly shared with defense witnesses who are scheduled to testify in this case. This information has been shared by the defendants and by others who are seated in the courtroom. Jorge Specifically, in telephone calls made by defendant from the Forsyth County Jail to individuals
Cornell
identified as D, Reverend Johnson, and Alana Cornell, it is clear that in-court testimony of witnesses has been improperly shared in violation of the Courts order of sequestration.
Jorge Cornell is in the custody of the United States Marshal and is being housed at the Forsyth County Jail. The Forsythe County
Jail allows inmates to make telephone calls, however, prior to each call the inmate is and advised that that may the be call is from a
correctional
facility
it
recorded
and/or
monitored at any time. On October 22, 2012 Cornell made two telephone calls to Reverend Johnson and D wherein he discussed the sequestration order as well as the testimony of witnesses. Again, on October 24, 2012 Cornell made a telephone call to D in which both discuss the fact that trial testimony
was shared with Alana Cornell. On October 25, 2012 Cornell made two telephone calls to Reverend Johnson, again discussing receipt of testimonial
details from October 24, 2012. On October 27, 2012 Cornell made one telephone call to
Reverend Johnson and four calls to Alana Cornell, in which the parties discussed the testimony of witnesses who had testified during that day, including the substance of grand jury
testimony. On October 30, 2012 Cornell called D at the residence of Alana Cornell, and Cornell discussed witness testimony with D. Finally, On November 4, 2012 Cornell called Reverend
Johnson to again recount the days testimonial evidence. On November 8, 2012 a press conference was held outside the Federal Courthouse in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. course of the news conference, Reverend During the shared
Johnson
information with the media that had been improperly revealed to Johnson by Cornell. Specifically, Johnson revealed the fact that a police department employee had told federal investigators
about an officer who claimed to have shot Cornell in 2008, a disclosure that was brought out in the courtroom for the first time during the pre-trial conference, and more specifically just days prior to the press conference. by Cornell to Reverend Johnson, During telephone calls made Cornell discussed this
information and the need to have it presented to the media. For the following reasons, the government requests this
Court impose sanctions, including barring Reverend Johnson and Alana Cornell from testifying in this case, due to a willful violation of this Courts sequestration order. In support of
this motion, the government will provide copies of all of the relevant recorded jail telephone calls and a copy of the
newspaper article detailing the press conference of November 8, 2012. II. Argument of trial witnesses serves the important
Sequestration
purpose of preventing the possibility of one witness shaping his testimony to serve a specific purpose based on what other
See, United States v. McMahon, 104 Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence, from its plain and unambiguous language provides: At the request of a party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order of its own motion. This rule does not authorize the exclusion of. . . (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the partys cause. . . Fed.R.Evid. 615. This rule prohibits the discussion of trial See,
testimony with any other witness who has yet to testify. United States v. Rhynes, 218 F.3d 310, 317 (4th Cir. 2000).
criminal defendant need not show the violation prejudiced him. A conviction may be upheld only if the violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Farnham, 791 F.2d
331, 335 (4th Cir. 1986); United States v. Burgess, 691 F.2d 1146, 1157 (4th Cir. 1982). An out-of-court Rule 615 violation is a different story. When an out-of-court violation is brought to the attention of the court, the remedies available, while varied, include
exclusion of witness testimony, holding the responsible party in contempt, sanctions for the offending witness, or letting the trial proceed unabated. United States v. Leggett, 326 F.2d 613,
614 (4th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 955 (1964); United States v. Cropp, 127 F.3d 354, 363 (4th Cir. 1997);
McMahon, 104 F.3d at 642. This Circuit has agreed that broad discretion can be
exercised to prevent a witness from tailoring testimony in light of the testimony of other witnesses, permit the discovery of false testimony and other problems related to credibility, and manage trials in the interests of justice. v. Brown, 2011 WL 6046370, *3 (E.D.N.C.). See, United States Sanctions must be
fixed in proportion to the severity of a partys misconduct. Cf. Doyle v. Murray, 938 F.2d 33, 34 (4th Cir. 1991). The Fourth Circuits decision in United States v. Cropp, 127 F.3d 354, 363 (4th Cir. 1997) is particularly instructive.
In
Cropp,
the that
defense he had
called never
witness
named
Carter, from
who co-
testified
purchased
narcotics
defendant Mosley, nor had he ever seen Mosley with drugs. Id. However, it became clear to the trial court during Carters
testimony that Mosley had spoken with Carter prior to Carters testimony, in violation of the courts sequestration order, and in fact the defendant had told Carter that there had been
previous testimony that Carter had purchased crack from Mosely on numerous occasions. Id. Based on the defendants clear,
intentional violation of the courts sequestration order, the court excluded Carters testimony. Id. In upholding the trial courts ruling, the Fourth Circuit, while clearly hesitant to endorse the use of such an extreme remedy, nevertheless concluded that the trial court was well within its discretion to strike the witnesss testimony,
especially where the violation was plainly the fault of the defendant or defendants counsel and indeed the defendant
himself was behind this violation in some way. Id. Here, far more so than in Cropp, the evidence before this Court himself is definitive has violated and this unambiguous Courts that defendant Cornel and
sequestration
order
intentionally subverted the purpose and spirit of the rule in this case. Specifically, on the dates specified above, Jorge Cornell, who is an inmate at the Forsythe County Jail, made
telephone calls to Reverend Johnson, D, and Alana Cornell. During the course of these calls Cornell openly and improperly discussed testimony provided by witnesses who have testified in this case, even acknowledging the existence of the Courts order designed to preclude such obstructionist conduct. Cornell
further made requests that Reverend Johnson be provided with the specifics of this testimony. In addition, Cornell was informed
by D that when he is not available, the substance of notes taken by individuals in court is shared with Reverend Johnson. Given this irrefutable evidence of the defendants blatant disregard requests defendant for that the the Courts Court sequestration take immediate of Rule order, action 615. the government the the
regarding Just as
Cornells
violation
defendant has a right to a fair trial by jury, the government also holds this right, which will be completely undermined if the defense is allowed to call two witnesses whose testimony has been so tainted and influenced by defendant Cornell and the
information he has provided them concerning the specifics of so many of the governments substantive witnesses. To allow these two witnesses to testify in the face of defendants intentional, repeated violation of this Courts sequestration order would be to permit willful, obstructionist The conduct to pass without
serious
consequence.
government
therefore
respectfully
Cornell
from
testifying
and
thus
preserve
the
integrity
and
fundamental fairness of this trial. Respectfully submitted this the 12th day of November, 2012. Respectfully submitted, RIPLEY RAND UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JORGE PETER CORNELL, also known as King J and King Jay RUSSELL LLOYD KILFOIL, also known as King Peaceful and Jonathan Hernandez RANDOLPH LEIF KILFOIL, also known as King Paul SAMUEL ISAAC VELASQUEZ, also known as King Hype IRVIN VASQUEZ, also known as King Dice CARLOS COLEMAN, also known as King Spanky ERNESTO WILSON, also known as King Yayo : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 1:11CR402-1 SUPERSEDING 1:11CR402-2
I hereby certify that on the 12th day of November, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: Michael W. Patrick, attorney for Jorge Peter Cornell (1), Brian M. Aus, attorney for Russell Lloyd Kilfoil (2), Christopher B. Shella, attorney for Randolph Leif Kilfoil (3, Mark Everette Edwards, attorney for Samuel Isaac Velasquez (9), Helen L. Parsonage, attorney for Irvin Vasquez (12), Charles L. White, Jr., attorney for Carlos Coleman (13) and Scott C. Holmes, attorney for Ernesto Wilson (14).
I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the following non CM/ECF participants: none. Respectfully submitted, RIPLEY RAND United States Attorney