Raia defense wants names of INFORMANTS

Frank Raia 

Hoboken politicos who have one eye on the federal prosecution of Frank Raia and Dio Braxton for "conspiracy to promote a voter bribery scheme by use of the mail," here's the latest development.

On February 19, 2019 the Raia defense filed a pre-trial "Omnibus Motion".  An  Omnibus Motion is a Motion, made within 45 days after Arraignment which is really many smaller motions all combined into one Omnibus Motion.

Please note: I am a layperson, not a criminal defense lawyer, so don't know how much of the following is boilerplate defense stuff, and how much is brass balls.  To my layperson's eyes, Raia is mounting a vigorous, full-throated defense- literally, going for the U.S.District Attorney's jugular. 

Raia's Omnibus Motion makes 11 "points"-- which are requests and/or assertion of rights to the Court.  GA has enumerated them below, with an explanatory excerpt taken verbatim from the Raia Omnibus Motion (italicized).  

What caught my eye were defense requests for NAMES and IDENTITIES of government informants, and unnamed co-conspirators referred to by the government as "Others."  Raia is also asking for right to subpoena documents from entities and individuals he believes have information germane to his defense.  

Is this boilerplate stuff? Dunno. But it looks to me like Raia, whose attorney appears to be taking the lead, is swinging hard.  BAM! POW!  Law-people, you're welcome to opine below.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, vs. FRANCIS RAIA and DIO BRAXTON, Defendants. 

BRIEF ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT, FRANCIS RAIA, 

IN SUPPORT OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS

STATEMENT OF FACTS

"The indictment charges defendant, Frank Raia, and co-defendant, Dio Braxton, with a conspiracy to commit mail fraud in connection with Hoboken's November 5. 2013, municipal election. According to the indictment, Raia, a resident of Hoboken, was a candidate for the Hoboken City Council, running as part of a slate that included other candidates for the Council, as well as a candidate for Mayor. Raia was also the chairperson of a political action committee. The indictment alleges that the ballot for the November 5, 2013 election included a referendum on whether Hoboken should maintain its existing rent control protections. Raia allegedly supported a "yes" vote on the referendum. The defendants are alleged to have conspired, along with unidentified "others" to bribe voters by paying them to apply for and cast their mail-in ballots in support of the Slate and in favor of the rent control referendum. Some voters allegedly received ballots by U.S. mail. The indictment alleges that, at Raia's direction, Braxton and others promised voters, "including Voter 1, Voter 2, and Voter 3, that they would be paid approximately $50 by check if they submitted a mail-in ballot for the November 5 Election.'' A PAC, allegedly at Raia's direction, paid a company to print checks for voters. Defendant maintains that he committed no offense. Any payments made were to persons working for Defendant's campaign."

(1) Request for identities of "Others"

"The indictment alleges that defendant conspired with '"others," without identifying who the "other" co-conspirators are....The failure of the indictment to provide such minimal information as the identities of the voters, the identity of the participants in the offenses alleged, the specific dates on which the offenses allegedly occurred, the places where the offenses occurred, the identity of each specific wrongful act attributed to defendant, and the actual harm effect by defendant's conduct substantially undermines defendant's ability to prepare a defense."

(2) Request to turn over exculpatory evidence 

"The indictment against defendant makes reference to Lizaida Camis. Defendant has reason to believe that Ms. Camis entered into a plea agreement with the government, signed a cooperation agreement, and testified before the grand jury. Defendant has not been supplied with any materials relating to plea or cooperation agreements with respect to Ms. Camis, nor with any grand jury testimony. Other witnesses, such as the three unidentified voters who were allegedly paid $50 apiece, were believed to have worked on Defendant's campaign and were paid for their work, not their votes. The strength of the Government's case against defendant will strongly depend upon the credibility of the Government's witnesses. With respect to each Government witness, defendant is entitled to receive copies of the following:..."

(3) Request for Preliminary Hearing to hear evidence that may be introduced at trial

"Defendant is entitled to have the Government disclose all Rule 404(b) evidence that it is seeking to introduce at trial."

(4) Request the government preserve all notes, etc. prepared in connection with investsigation that led to indictment  

"Defendant requests that this Court enter an order directing the government to preserve all rough notes, interview notes, report drafts and final reports that were prepared by any federal, state or local government agent in connection with the investigation that led to this indictment. These notes must be preserved because some of the notes might not only exculpate defendant directly, but would be material to the cross-examination of various government witnesses."

(5) Request for Grand Jury transcripts
"Because unusual circumstances exist that imperil the due process, air trial and confrontation rights of defendant, a particularized need has been demonstrated that requires production of the grand jury transcripts." 

" (6) Request for the names of government informants
"Defendant believes that various informants were used by the government in conducting its investigation, and that some of these persons are not merely informants, but witnesses. With respect to each informant, defendant requests disclosure of his or her name and last known address so that a request for an interview can be made. Such disclosure is vital to the protection of defendant's rights at trial. This is particularly so here because the informants involved may be critical witnesses to certain events alleged by the government to be criminal.Under these circumstances, because it is reasonably probable that the informants can give testimony that is relevant and material to the defense, disclosure is mandated."

(7) Right to subpoena documents from entities or persons who may have information germane to his defense 
"Defendant seeks an Order pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c), permitting him to serve a documentary subpoena upon relevant persons and entities in advance of the trial date. As the United States Supreme Court has held, a criminal defendant has both a constitutional right to obtain evidence which bears upon the determination of either guilt or punishment and a Sixth Amendment right to process."

(8) Request to suppress post-conspiracy or post-arrest statements made by co-defendants/alleged co-conspirators
"Any post-conspiracy or post-arrest statements made by Braxton, Camis, or any unidentified co-conspirator of defendant to the Government or the Grand Jury, inculpatory of defendant must be suppressed." 

(9) Request to sever Braxton from joint prosecution  

"Co-defendant Braxton offered grand jury testimony and made a statement to the Government that are exculpatory of defendant. Braxton stated that no payments were made to any person in exchange for their vote. He also stated that persons who were paid worked for the campaign. As a co-defendant, Braxton has the right to refuse to testify under the Fifth Amendment. If that right is asserted, defendant will be deprived of Braxton's exonerating testimony."

(10) Request for Government Witness List

"Although a defendant is not entitled as a matter of right to a list of government witnesses, United States v. Addonizio, 451 F.2d 49, 62 (3d Cis. 1972), this Court has the authority to require the Government to disclose prior to trial the names of its anticipated witnesses...In the circumstances here, where the acts alleged do not involve violence and there is no threat of retribution to witnesses, it is of vital importance to defendants' right to a fair trial to know who will be testifying for the Government. Defendant may want to interview such persons, may need to interview others based upon who the witnesses are, and may need certain documentary evidence, depending upon who the witnesses are. Unless defendant is advised of the names of the potential witnesses against him, he will not be able to properly prepare their defense in advance of trial."

(11) Asserts right to incorporate co-defendants' factual and legal arguments, and join co-defendants' motions 

"To the extent they are consistent with his factual and legal arguments, defendant incorporates by reference all factual and legal arguments raised by his co-defendant, and he seeks leave to adopt and join in all such arguments."

USA v Francis Raia, et al. ... by on Scribd