Although not exactly good news, its the best there is to offer those concerned about USA Letten’s involvement in USA v Perdigao.
The Court determined that Deputy Chief Fred Harper and U.S. Attorney Jim Letten did not and will not have any direct involvement in the prosecution of the Defendant.
Otherwise, the news from the docket today is Judge Fallon’s Order and Reasons for denying motion for reconsideration of order denying motion for recusal and evidentiary hearing
The parties informed the Court in March of 2008 that plea negotiations had broken down and that a new trial date needed to be selected. The Court held a status conference and a trial date of December 1, 2008 was selected. On April 17, 2008, the Defendant filed a motion to recuse the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana from this case. The Government vigorously opposed the motion. On July 9, 2008, this Court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Recusal.
The Defendant urges the Court to reconsider its July 9, 2008 ruling for three reasons: 1)the Court failed to state its essential findings on the record as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(d), 2) the Court’s Order & Reasons failed to address each of the Defendant’s allegations against the U.S. Attorney’s office, and 3) prosecutorial bias constitutes grounds for disqualification.
I found Judge Fallon’s Reasons an interesting read.
The Government argues the Court correctly concluded that the Defendant’s motion for< recusal should be denied. The Government further argues that the Defendant’s motion does not satisfy the strict and rare standard applied to reconsideration motions.
“[T]hree situations justify a district court altering or amending its judgment: 1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; 2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or 3) to correct a clear error of law or to prevent a manifest injustice[.]” United States v. Ogden, 2008 WL 2704539 (W.D. Tenn. July 2, 2008). The Court finds that there has not been any intervening change in controlling law that would justify a modification in the Court’s decision. Evidence previously unavailable has not come to light that would warrant a new decision.
The Court further finds that reconsideration is not necessary to correct a clear error of law or to prevent a manifest injustice.
Even more interesting were Judge Fallon’s reasons for not holding an evidentiary hearing. I’ve separated the points into paragraphs for ease of reading. (all emphasis added)
The Court reviewed the filings provided by the Defendant and the government and concluded that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary. “When factual issues are involved in deciding a motion, the court must state its essential findings on the record.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(d).
The Court determined that Deputy Chief Fred Harper and U.S. Attorney Jim Letten did not and will not have any direct involvement in the prosecution of the Defendant.
The Court found numerous allegations to be unfounded.
The Court further determined that the Defendant’s allegations, even if true, did not warrant the recusal of the entire United States Attorney’s office.
Fallon then summarizes his denial and makes the point of noting the essential finds of fact are stated.
The Court fully evaluated the factual allegations and stated the essential findings of fact warranting a denial of the Defendant’s motion for recusal. The Court finds no reason to reevaluate its factual decisions regarding the Defendant’s motion for recusal.
Since Perdiago’s criminal case has a much longer history than Perdigao v Adams & Reese – the RICO case that brought Perdiago to the attention of SLABBED -I pulled what I thought was needed for a document trail from the docket. There is related information in this earlier post; and, more legal documents can be found in the left side bar. Additional posts on the case can be found by typing in Perdiago at the top of this page on the right-hand side.
Thanks so much. From just reading the above post, it appears that Judge Fallon has completely ignored the scope of the reasons for recusal of the entire Eastern District U. S. Attorneys Office and decided to blow a mirage of fiction that excluding Letten and Harper corrects any manifest injustice. The biggest sucker in the world wouldn’t buy it. So, we know what is not beneath the dignity of Judge Fallon.
Judge Fallon would not permit the defendant to have an evidentiary hearing — so the defendant was not allowed to enter fact testimony to be considered. Then, with the defendant being barred to enter evidence at an evidentiary hearing, Judge Fallon based his order on a letter from the Justice Department summarily stating that Perdigao’s claims were investigated. However, that letter was self-serving on its face. There were no facts in the letter that supported its conclusion. So, Judge Fallon’s order is based on — no facts.
We can only hope that on appeal the Fifth Circuit will call out the manifest injustice of Judge Fallon’s denial of Perdigao’s motion for recusal.
Well, we now know what is not beneath Judge Fallon’s dignity. Now, let’s watch him closely.
Okay, that much I know from the above post, now I will read the documents.
Thanks so much for posting. It is certainly interesting to those of us watching this matter. Having the documents posted allows everybody to know exactly what shenanigans goes on.
Okay — I read the Order. It was just more jokes than recapped in the above post. Judge Fallon is a Joker Judge. Nothing funny about it.
IMHO, the “tell” will come when he decides the motion in limine to exclude Perdigao’s evidence.
I think you’re right NAAS – that and the accounting for the money.