UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
Cr. No. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Judge: DUGGAN
xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
a.k.a. J. Later, and
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Defendants.
DEFENDANT xxxxxxxxxx ANSWER IN
OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT MOTION
TO DEPOSE xxxxxxxxxxx
NOW COMES Defendant, xxxxxxxxxxx , through his counsel, Miriam L. Siefer of the Federal Defender Office, and files this answer in opposition to the taking of the deposition of Hienz xxxxxxxxx. In support of this answer, Defendant files the attached brief and states as follows:
1. Defendant is charged in a 90 count, 63 page, Superseding Indictment, with various offenses arising from an alleged fraud committed against three banks.
2 . The Superseding Indictment alleges the existence of an international effort involving numerous legitimate and alleged shell companies that were incorporated and doing business in at least four different countries. The Government's investigation of Defendants occurred over an almost ten year period.
3. The original Indictment was filed on April 4, 1996. The Superseding indictment was filed on January 7, 1997. But the Federal Defender Office was not appointed until March 19, 1997.
4. Counsel opposes the Government's motion on the basis that the Government has not established the necessary materiality and exceptional circumstances that justify taking of the deposition, pursuant Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.
a) Counsel for the Government has failed to establish that Mr. xxxxxxxxx is presently capable of and competent to testify.
b) Counsel for the Government has failed to establish that Mr. xxxxxxxxx will be unable to testify in the future, since video testimony at the time of trial could alleviate the witness's travel problems.
c) Counsel for Defendant seeks an independent review of the potential witness's medical condition, either by review of the patient's medical file or by direct examination of the patient.
5. Counsel opposes the Government's motion on the basis that the defense has had insufficient time and opportunity to prepare for the deposition of Heinz xxxxxxxxx.
a) To date, the Government has provided defense counsel with only approximately 150 pages of discovery. Further discovery has been delayed by the Government's decision to duplicate all its evidence before permitting review by the defense. In addition, the Government has represented that the documents accumulated during its lengthy investigation are too numerous to reproduce for defense counsel. Consequently, defense counsel has viewed very few of the government's discovery documents in the case.
b) Defendant xxxxxxxx resides in Canada. Since the appointment of the Federal Defender Office, the Defendant has traveled to Detroit on one occasion to meet with counsel. However, even that meeting was of limited value in preparation for any "deposition", since counsel has barely begun to review the humongous amount of evidence in this case.
c) Due to defense counsel's lack of access to discovery documents, lack of access to Defendant and short duration of appointment, defense counsel is not yet familiar with this complex case.
d) Defense counsel cannot determine a pattern of cross examination until the theory of defense is identified. Defense counsel cannot determine a theory of defense until there has been an opportunity to review and assimilate the evidence in the case. Given the volume and complexity of the evidence in the case, counsel cannot reasonable be expected to be prepared by May 19, 1997.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully asks this Honorable Court to deny the government's Motion to Depose Heinz xxxxxxxxx for failure to establish materiality and exceptional circumstances to justify such a deposition. In the alternative, Defendant asks the Court to order an independent evaluation of the witness's medical condition prior to making a decision on the motion. As a final alternative, if this Court grants the government's Motion to Depose Heinz xxxxxxxxx, then Defendant respectfully requests at this Court extend the date for the deposition for a substantial time, sufficient to allow defense counsel to become familiar with the case and to prepare for the deposition.
Sincerely,
FEDERAL DEFENDER OFFICE
MIRIAM L. SIEFER
CHIEF FEDERAL DEFENDER
Dated: April 25, 1997
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
Cr. No. xxxxxxxxxxx
Judge: DUGGAN
-1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
-2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
-3 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-4 xxxxxxxxxxxx, a.k.a. xxxxxx, and
-4 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Defendants.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT xxxxxxxxxxxxx ANSWER IN
OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT MOTION
TO DEPOSE HEINZ xxxxxxxxx
ISSUES PRESENTED
1.
WHETHER AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE PREJUDICIAL AND UNUSUAL STEP OF THE TAKING OF THE
DEPOSITIONS OF AT LEAST 27 FOREIGN WITNESSES WOULD VIOLATE DEFENDANTS' CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS?
II.
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT HAS CARRIED ITS BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THE EXISTENCE OF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRED BEFORE THIS COURT CAN TAKE THE PREJUDICIAL AND UNUSUAL STEP OF ENTERING AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF DEPOSITIONS OF AT LEAST 27 FOREIGN WITNESSES?
Ill.
WHETHER THIS COURT, IF IT DECIDES TO ENTER SUCH A PREJUDICIAL AND UNUSUAL ORDER, SHOULD DELAY THE DEPOSITIONS UNTIL JUNE 1999 SO AS TO ALLOW DEFENDANTS SUFFICIENT TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE DEPOSITIONS?
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant xxxxxxxxxxxx and four co-defendants are charged in a 63 page, 90 indictment
with various offen]q^^ X+{X/z֥ TxC Y~Sɦ>jN_;7NDY(yͅHUv j V*Ix=v=Xx3maMA+F6qw-eRj=UA_FĮ ^-v
,]{5kEC
'֪