Você está na página 1de 2

JOHN M. REGAN, JR., ESQ.

Attorney at Law
7 Iroquois Street Rochester, New York 14609 Tel: 585.546.8880 Email: jregan3@rochester.rr.com April 23, 2009 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL UNDERBERG & KESSLER, LLP 300 Bausch & Lomb Place Rochester, NY 14604 Attn: James V. DAnza, Esq. Re: Davis v. Kohout, et al., Docket No. OP-06-01392 Dear Jim: Enclosed are motion papers filed in the Appellate Division relative to the above captioned matter, returnable May 11th, 2009, seeking a writ of error coram nobis due to a fraud on the court. The first thing I want to say is that you should direct your client to have no contact whatsoever, directly or indirectly, with any of the relevant witnesses. Aside from the fact that nothing any witness says now is going to make any difference, the witness tampering and intimidation in this matter simply has to stop. The second thing is that I strongly recommend that you consent to the relief sought, regardless of what your clients wishes are. You may recall that I approached you with a similar request when the matter was pending in 2006. I have to say that my impression was that you did not take the request seriously enough. That was a big mistake. The arrest in December of 2006 (while the Article 78 proceeding was pending) of Todd Gaddy who, along with his then wife Ashley Baker was one of the most critical witnesses establishing the police sponsored conspiracy that was behind Sephora Davis prosecution, and who had only recently been identified as such by me in the Article 78 proceeding, was plainly an effort to silence or intimidate him. I have further information confirming this which cannot be adduced in the motion papers. I am addressing you as a colleague, and assume you had no knowledge of or role in that effort.

Your attorney-client obligations do not extend to aiding and abetting criminal conduct, which is what the prosecution and imprisonment of Sephora Davis was and remains (see, e.g., New York Penal Law 105.05, 135.60, 135.65, 195.00, 195.05, 210.15, 215.10; also 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242). Furthermore, while of course you cannot reveal client secrets or act in such a way as to directly expose a client to civil or criminal liability, you also cannot countenance any client prevailing in litigation through fraudulent means, to say nothing of the thuggery that has been displayed here. In such a case, your obligations as an officer of the court transcend your duty to your client, and you have an affirmative duty to correct the wrong. Unfortunately, the situation is far more serious now than it was when I made my request in 2006, since Ms. Davis has been in prison for more than two years. It is likely to be more serious still, both for you and your law firm, if you again refuse to accept my recommendation and follow my advice. It is particularly disturbing to me, and should be to you, that Tom Moran seemed overeager to elicit testimony from Eric Harder, Adrian Paige and Shaun Theriault during their plea colloquys that Sephora Davis was driving her car during the robbery, which was not essential information for the purpose at hand. These pleas occurred in March and early April of 2004. When coupled with the years long effort to withhold exculpatory evidence, this strongly suggests he may have had knowledge of, or been involved in, the conspiracy to falsely implicate Sephora from very early on. You need to ask some tough questions of your client, if you have not already done so. And I dont believe your obligation ends there, either. I encourage you to discuss this with more senior members of your firm, and with me if you feel you require more information and explanation after you review the motion papers. You can contact me by cell phone: 585.739.7924 Very truly yours,

JOHN M. REGAN, JR.

Você também pode gostar