Haiti Prison Trial Report
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
Defendants, Monclaire Saint Louis and Ulriste Tulin, through undersigned counsels, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and hereby respectfully moves the Court for a continuance of the trial in this matter. As grounds for this Motion, counsel submits the following Memorandum in Support:
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
1. The defendants, Haitian Nationals, are charged with Conspiracy to Commit Hostage Taking, 18 U.S.C. § 1203, two counts of Aiding and Abetting of Hostage Taking, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1203, 2, and Using a Firearm during a Crime of Violence and Aiding and Abetting, 18 U.S.C. § 924. The government alleged that the offenses were committed against two United States citizens. The seriousness of the charges against the defendants cannot be overstated. If convicted, they face a maximum penalty of life in prison.
2. The government asserts that it has provided counsel with all of the discovery in their possession, however, counsel has received recent information that the government possess additional discovery through the United States Embassy for Haiti. The investigator for the defense has been refused access to the Haitian court files for the defendants, alleged co-conspirators and witnesses, including Samson …show more content…
Jobibois. However, based on information and belief, the United States Embassy for Haiti is in possession of Haitian records related to this case. The records were removed from the file and a plastic placeholder was place therein stating the records were for the Embassy. Furthermore, the involvement of the Embassy is corroborated by the government’s recent discovery disclosure on Saturday, December 3, 2016, that provides evidence that the United States Embassy for Haiti was involved in this case.
3. The Haitian court records are important exculpatory evidence that the defense are entitled to. Samson Jolibios, Jean Raymond, Monclaire Saint Louis, Saint Louis Roberson, Roodeline Richemar, Lancia Dues, and Alfred Lesly were all arrested and brought before the Haitian court for the alleged hostage takings. According to Haitian law and an expert on the subject, each of the alleged co-conspirators and co-defendant, appeared before a justice and an investigation magistrate, where each would have been questioned by the judge and their statements would have been memorialized by the clerk. These statements, which may also include statements of the alleged victims or witnesses made in court, would be placed in the Haitian court file. On December 1, 2016, the government disclosed evidence that Samson Jolibois stated that he appeared in Haitian court three times and recalled hearing details of the victims’ testimony.
4.
Additionally, counsel has been unable to verify if the defendants were properly held in Haiti upon arrest and extradited to the United States. In a FBI report disclosed to counsel on Saturday, December 3, 2016, the FBI inquiries about the status of extradition and makes reference to an undisclosed email. Upon a specific request, the government refused to disclose the defendants extradition documents, stating the documents were “not discoverable”. This evidence is discoverable under Rule 16 as to the defendants’ statements, while in custody, whether they waived or fought the extradition. Additionally, the statements are considered Brady evidence and are material to guilt or
innocence.
5. A continuance is necessary to adequately investigate and prepare a defense in this case. The court has certified this case as complex. The allegation in the superseding indictment occurred in Haiti in 2012. The initial investigation was performed by the Haitian Police and the majority of the witnesses and evidence is in Haiti and/or in Haitian Creole. The FBI continued to investigate the case for an additional three years, until 2015, which resulted in the 2016 superseding indictment.
6. Although, counsel has diligently worked to review the discovery, consult with translators and investigators, investigate the case, interview witnesses, and secure evidence, the defense has had impediments to the investigation and preparation of a defense in this case. Investigation in Haiti has proven to be slow paced and challenging given the age of the case, difficulty of locating witnesses, the inability to access Haitian records, including those from the court and penitentiary, and recently a national disaster and political conflict. See attached Declaration .
7. During trial, the government will present evidence deducted by the Haitian National Police investigation in this case, which includes witness statements and identification. Counsel has consulted with an expert that can present evidence as to the Haitian National Police lack of training, protocol, inferior investigation skills, and use of torture in obtaining confessions. The government intends to introduce Saint Louis’ coerced confession, which implicates Tulin, in trial, and therefore, the expert is necessary to provide testimony as to the tactics used in Haiti. The expert will also provide evidence of the rampant corruption in the police department and court system, which rebuts the government’s evidence of a credible and thorough police investigation.
8. Additionally, the government will present evidence that the rap group, Sekte Misyon Skawd, is a criminal gang. Furthermore, at the November 29, 2016 hearing, the government implicated the defendants as leaders of the gang. Counsel has consulted with a Haitian gang expert who can present evidence of gang and gang culture in Haiti, which significantly differs from jurors understanding of gangs in the United States. This expert has specific knowledge of individuals, including Samson Jolibois, who have alleged to commit kidnappings and hostage takings in Haiti and has investigation research that excludes Tulin as a participant in such criminal acts. This evidence is material and exculpatory to the defense in this case.
9. Both experts are essential to defense and are necessary witnesses. A continuance is needed for the experts to consult with counsel and be available for trial.
10. Defendants are not seeking a continuance simply for sake of delay. Rather, defendants now require additional time in which to properly prepare for trial. In addition, Defendants requests such a continuance in order to exercise the right to effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore, to ensure that the defendants receive a fair trial, a continuance is warranted.
11. The government objects to this motion, however, whether to grant a motion for a continuance is within the broad discretion of the district court. See, e.g. United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 662-66 (1984); Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1983); and United States v. Hoyte, 51 F.3d 1239, 1245 (4th Cir. 1995). It is in the interests of justice that the motion be granted in that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8).
12. WHEREF ORE, defendants, Monclaire Saint Louis and Ulriste Tulin, through counsel, respectfully request this Honorable Court grant the motion to continue the trial.
Defendants, Monclaire Saint Louis and Ulriste Tulin, through undersigned counsels, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and hereby respectfully moves the Court for a continuance of the trial in this matter. As grounds for this Motion, counsel submits the following Memorandum in Support:
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
1. The defendants, Haitian Nationals, are charged with Conspiracy to Commit Hostage Taking, 18 U.S.C. § 1203, two counts of Aiding and Abetting of Hostage Taking, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1203, 2, and Using a Firearm during a Crime of Violence and Aiding and Abetting, 18 U.S.C. § 924. The government alleged that the offenses were committed against two United States citizens. The seriousness of the charges against the defendants cannot be overstated. If convicted, they face a maximum penalty of life in prison.
2. The government asserts that it has provided counsel with all of the discovery in their possession, however, counsel has received recent information that the government possess additional discovery through the United States Embassy for Haiti. The investigator for the defense has been refused access to the Haitian court files for the defendants, alleged co-conspirators and witnesses, including Samson …show more content…
Jobibois. However, based on information and belief, the United States Embassy for Haiti is in possession of Haitian records related to this case. The records were removed from the file and a plastic placeholder was place therein stating the records were for the Embassy. Furthermore, the involvement of the Embassy is corroborated by the government’s recent discovery disclosure on Saturday, December 3, 2016, that provides evidence that the United States Embassy for Haiti was involved in this case.
3. The Haitian court records are important exculpatory evidence that the defense are entitled to. Samson Jolibios, Jean Raymond, Monclaire Saint Louis, Saint Louis Roberson, Roodeline Richemar, Lancia Dues, and Alfred Lesly were all arrested and brought before the Haitian court for the alleged hostage takings. According to Haitian law and an expert on the subject, each of the alleged co-conspirators and co-defendant, appeared before a justice and an investigation magistrate, where each would have been questioned by the judge and their statements would have been memorialized by the clerk. These statements, which may also include statements of the alleged victims or witnesses made in court, would be placed in the Haitian court file. On December 1, 2016, the government disclosed evidence that Samson Jolibois stated that he appeared in Haitian court three times and recalled hearing details of the victims’ testimony.
4.
Additionally, counsel has been unable to verify if the defendants were properly held in Haiti upon arrest and extradited to the United States. In a FBI report disclosed to counsel on Saturday, December 3, 2016, the FBI inquiries about the status of extradition and makes reference to an undisclosed email. Upon a specific request, the government refused to disclose the defendants extradition documents, stating the documents were “not discoverable”. This evidence is discoverable under Rule 16 as to the defendants’ statements, while in custody, whether they waived or fought the extradition. Additionally, the statements are considered Brady evidence and are material to guilt or
innocence.
5. A continuance is necessary to adequately investigate and prepare a defense in this case. The court has certified this case as complex. The allegation in the superseding indictment occurred in Haiti in 2012. The initial investigation was performed by the Haitian Police and the majority of the witnesses and evidence is in Haiti and/or in Haitian Creole. The FBI continued to investigate the case for an additional three years, until 2015, which resulted in the 2016 superseding indictment.
6. Although, counsel has diligently worked to review the discovery, consult with translators and investigators, investigate the case, interview witnesses, and secure evidence, the defense has had impediments to the investigation and preparation of a defense in this case. Investigation in Haiti has proven to be slow paced and challenging given the age of the case, difficulty of locating witnesses, the inability to access Haitian records, including those from the court and penitentiary, and recently a national disaster and political conflict. See attached Declaration .
7. During trial, the government will present evidence deducted by the Haitian National Police investigation in this case, which includes witness statements and identification. Counsel has consulted with an expert that can present evidence as to the Haitian National Police lack of training, protocol, inferior investigation skills, and use of torture in obtaining confessions. The government intends to introduce Saint Louis’ coerced confession, which implicates Tulin, in trial, and therefore, the expert is necessary to provide testimony as to the tactics used in Haiti. The expert will also provide evidence of the rampant corruption in the police department and court system, which rebuts the government’s evidence of a credible and thorough police investigation.
8. Additionally, the government will present evidence that the rap group, Sekte Misyon Skawd, is a criminal gang. Furthermore, at the November 29, 2016 hearing, the government implicated the defendants as leaders of the gang. Counsel has consulted with a Haitian gang expert who can present evidence of gang and gang culture in Haiti, which significantly differs from jurors understanding of gangs in the United States. This expert has specific knowledge of individuals, including Samson Jolibois, who have alleged to commit kidnappings and hostage takings in Haiti and has investigation research that excludes Tulin as a participant in such criminal acts. This evidence is material and exculpatory to the defense in this case.
9. Both experts are essential to defense and are necessary witnesses. A continuance is needed for the experts to consult with counsel and be available for trial.
10. Defendants are not seeking a continuance simply for sake of delay. Rather, defendants now require additional time in which to properly prepare for trial. In addition, Defendants requests such a continuance in order to exercise the right to effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore, to ensure that the defendants receive a fair trial, a continuance is warranted.
11. The government objects to this motion, however, whether to grant a motion for a continuance is within the broad discretion of the district court. See, e.g. United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 662-66 (1984); Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1983); and United States v. Hoyte, 51 F.3d 1239, 1245 (4th Cir. 1995). It is in the interests of justice that the motion be granted in that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8).
12. WHEREF ORE, defendants, Monclaire Saint Louis and Ulriste Tulin, through counsel, respectfully request this Honorable Court grant the motion to continue the trial.