| Bello
Charged With Drugs Asks SDNY To Change
Lawyer Again Now Motion Returned
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Nov 10 – Andres Bello is
in pre-trial detention in a
narcotics conspiracy case. He
wanted to replace his
appointed lawyer. Again.
On April 2,
2021 U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New
York Judge P. Kevin Castel
held a proceeding. Inner City
Press covered it.
Bello's
outgoing lawyer asked if he
had gotten the hard drive of
discovery from the government.
No, was the
answer. The lawyer committed
to mailing it to the incoming
counsel, who was appointed.
Now on September
16, 2021, Bello's and
co-defendants' motion to
dismiss based on the jury pool
has been denied: "Defendants
Humberto Rodriguez, Andres
Bello and Sharrone Lewis move
to dismiss the Superseding
Indictment in this case. They
assert that the grand jury
that returned the Superseding
Indictment did not reflect a
fair cross-section of the
community as required by the
Sixth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and the
Jury Selection and Service Act
of 1968 (“JSSA”), 28 U.S.C. §
1861, et seq. (Docket # 131.)
Specifically, they urge that
Black and Hispanic individuals
were unfairly underrepresented
in the grand jury pool drawn
for the Foley Square
courthouses of this District,
and that a statistical
analysis set forth in the
Declaration of Jeffrey Martin,
a statistician, makes out a
prima facie case that this
underrepresentation was
systematic. Because defendants
have not made out a prima
facie case of systematic
underrepresentation of Black
and Hispanic persons from the
grand jury pool, defendants’
motion to dismiss will be
denied."
On November 10,
this: "ORDER as to Andres
Bello: Andres Bello is
represented by CJA counsel, at
least his fourth counsel in
this action. He has submitted
to the Court a pro se motion
to dismiss the indictment and
to release him pending trial.
A defendant has a right to be
represented by counsel and
also has a right to represent
himself, subject to the
appropriate inquiry. He has no
constitutional or statutory
right to a hybrid
representation and has
advanced no persuasive reason
for allowing him to proceed in
this manner. See, e.g., United
States v Tutino, 883 F.2d
1125, 1141 (2d Cir. 1989). The
motion will be transmitted to
his counsel who will proceed
as deemed appropriate. SO
ORDERED. (Signed by Judge P.
Kevin Castel on 11/10/2021)."
The case is US v.
Rodriguez et al., 20-cr-301
(Castel)
***
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 2006-2021 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
