| Pras Michel
Trial Has US Witnesses, Judge
then Clarifies Jury Not To
Decide US Misconduct
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
FEDERAL
COURTHOUSE, March 31 – Pras
Michel on trial on charges of
working for Jho Low to lobby
the Obama then Trump
administrations.
He also met with
China about Guo Wengui / Miles
Kwok, detained last week along
with his chief of staff Yvette
Wang on fraud charges - Inner
City Press story here,
stand-up here.
Jho Low book here.
The trial
began in earnest on March 30
with the prosecution's opening
and first witness. Inner City
was there, live tweeted thread
here
(more on Substack here)
Here for vlog
1 2
(Guo)
On March 31,
after the cross of Heuchling,
there were Randall Toussaint,
Tysa Wright, Loic Gouzer, Eric
Feigenbaum and Nevill
Richardson.
Judge
Kollar-Kottely told a 4 pm
sentencing that she arrived a
bit late because she wanted
these witnesses to finish and
not have to come back Monday.
Later she docketed a
clarification:
as to March 31,
2023, "the Court must offer
two clarifications as to its
evidentiary rulings. First,
the Court has reiterated
several times that the defense
may not elicit or present to
the jury any allegations of
government misconduct. Those
claims are for the Court, not
the jury. As such, the Court
excluded the defense's
attempts to elicit allegations
that a witness felt
intimidated by government
investigators. Second, the
parties appear to have
misconstrued the law as to
Counts Five and Six of the
[84] Superseding Indictment,
charging witness tampering in
violation of 18 U.S.C.
1512(b). As a matter of law,
that a witness did not feel
intimidated by a defendant's
alleged threat is not a
defense to witness tampering.
See United States v. Jackson,
513 F.2d 456, 460 (D.C. Cir.
1975) (18 U.S.C. 1503); United
States v. Davis, 854 F.3d
1276, 1292-93 (11th Cir.
2017). Additionally, the
Court clarifies its rulings
regarding impeachment through
material in an FBI 302. An
attorney must first take
multiple steps before
inquiring of the witness
whether they made a particular
prior statement. For example,
to impeach a witness, the
Court requires the attorney to
first announce that they
intend to use a particular
document for the purpose of
impeachment and afford
opposing counsel an
opportunity to review the
document before beginning the
impeachment. See Fed. R. Evid.
613(a). Second, a document may
only be used for impeachment
if it contains the witness's
prior statement that is in
fact inconsistent. Therefore,
a witness may not be impeached
by an FBI agent's summary of a
witness's purported prior
statement... Signed by
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
on March 31, 2023. (lcckk1)
On March
24, the business day before
the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia
trial, Michel's lawyers put in
a supplemental witness list
including... Steve Bannon.
List on Patreon here.
On March
25, Michel asked the Court to
have Guo Wengui brought to
testify: "The testimony of
Wengui, is material and
necessary to Defendant for a
successful defense..
Service for Guo Wengui has
been attempted at MDC;
however, Process Servicer was
informed “Absolutely no legal
papers are allowed to be
served in premises for this
case.”
Petitioner
requests this court issue a
Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad
Testificandum to Herberto
Tellez the Warden of MDC,
Brooklyn, New York in Kings
County, to bring Guo Wengui
before this court at a date
and time forthcoming to
testify as a witness in
petitioner’s trial, and to
return Guo Wengui to the state
penitentiary immediately on
the conclusion of his
testimony." Full filing on
Patreon here.
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2023 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
