Wednesday, June 1, 2011

The governments answer to the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct during the grand jury proceedings for the Plantation Cops mortgage fraud case.


Yesterday we discussed the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by the government during the grand jury proceedings which led up to the Plantation cops mortgage fraud indictment.  Specifically it's alleged that the government lied to the grand jury when they claimed that the subjects misrepresented facts on HUD-1 forms that were submitted to a Government agency, the Department of Housing & Urban Development.  Our contention is that this is patently false as these loans were neither FHA loans or loans that were underwritten by the government therefore making the prosecutors allegations of "submitting false information to a government agency" an outright lie.

As shocking as these allegations of prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury were, I was even more startled at the prosecutors response to the allegations, take a look for yourselves...

Governments Response to Steven Stolls Motion to Dismiss

I find this bit the most disturbing...
Any purported errors claimed by the Defendant are rendered harmless if the petit jury convicts the defendant. See United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 72-73 (1986).
Based on the aforementioned argument and facts, the counts in the Indictment should stand and the defendant can be tried on the merits. "An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, . . . if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits." Costello, 350 U.S. at 363.
Really?  So the government says disregard the fact that we may have made a horrific mistake (perhaps intentionally) when we convinced the grand jury to indict, now since we're in front of another jury, let them figure it out?  If the "petit jury" convicts, the errors we made are harmless?  How about taking into consideration that if you didn't make these "purported errors" the grand jury may not have indicted the poor schleps that are now before the "petit jury"?  

I can only imagine the rage the defendants must have felt when reading this motion.  Oh well, like the government says, fuck it, let the jury figure it out...

1 comment:

  1. So what was the judge answer?