New Horizons Holdings (fka NHHI)

[tfant53]

New /Document Turino, Free from Pacer

Search...

Actions
« Prev1Next »
4profit
*Diamond*
********

4profit Avatar

WE WON

Posts: 1,333
Member is Online

New /Document Turino, Free from Pacer 23 hours ago tfant53 likes this.
Quote Edit like Post Options
Post by 4profit on 23 hours ago
Jeffrey is having a hard time, all his motions being denied

Bruce Harlan will be allowed to testify about conversations he had with Turino.

This one denied about having inflammatory and untrue statements omitted from Indictment. Jury will see it in its original form.

Harlan, Spooner, Jeff Mitchell & witnesses (who otherwise might be named in Indictments) supplying information to the FBI regarding Turino, all on deck to testify.

Turino remains 5 years 4 months incarcerated. Not looking good for him. No motion to split from CMKM case as of yet.


Compliments of Pacer. Short documents are once in a while provided to clients. Copy and paste for easier reading

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Strike Surplusage (#351), filed on
August 23, 2015. The Government filed its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Strike Surplusage
(#364) on September 9, 2015 and Defendant filed his Reply (#369) on September 15, 2015. The
Court conducted a hearing in this matter on October 16, 2015.

BACKGROUND

The Grand Jury returned a Second Superseding Indictment (#63) against Defendant Turino
on March 24, 2010, charging him with the following: (1) conspiracy to conduct or participate in
racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); (2) conspiracy to sell unregistered
securities, to make false statements to the SEC, to evade filing periodic reports, and to commit
securities fraud and insider trading in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e, 77q, 77x, 78m, 78j, and 78ff;
(3) conspiracy to commit securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1349; (4) three counts of
fraudulent interstate securities transactions in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§77q and 77x; (5) four counts
of securities fraud and insider trading in violation of 15 U.S.C. 78j and 78ff; (6) two counts of
securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1348; (7) fraudulent interstate securities transactions in
violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 77q and 77x; and (8) conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation

Case 2:09-cr-00132-JAD-GWF Document 403 Filed 01/14/16 Page 1 of 3

of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The second superseding indictment also sets forth several forfeiture
allegations. See Second Superseding Indictment (#63).
In his motion, Defendant requests the Court strike several paragraphs and portions of
paragraphs1 of the indictment which he believes “amounts to prejudicial, inflammatory and
irrelevant allegations” and should be striken as surplusage. Motion to Strike (#351), 2:22.
Defendant also asserts that the Government attempts to impermissibly argue its case in several
instances throughout the indictment. The Government argues that an indictment, by its nature, must
contain inculpatory facts and that Defendant has failed to show how the information contained
therein “is improperly inflammatory or carries any potential for prejudice beyond its intrinsically
inculpatory nature.” Opposition (#364), 3:6-7.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 7, an indictment “must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of
the essential facts constituting the offense charged... .” Fed.R.Crim.P. 7. Rule 7(d) provides that
“Upon the defendant's motion, the court may strike surplusage from the indictment or
information.” “The purpose of a motion to strike under Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(d) is to protect a defendant
against ‘prejudicial or inflammatory allegations that are neither relevant nor material to the
charges.’” United States v. Terrigno, 838 F.2d 371 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v.
Ramirez, 710 F.2d 535, 544–45 (9th Cir. 1983)). An indictment is inculpatory by nature and a
defendant must demonstrate how an individual statement is improperly inflammatory or prejudicial.
See United States v. Whittemore, 2013 WL 1181915 (D. Nevada 2013). However, while facts in the
indictment “may be somewhat prejudicial,” they should not be stricken if they are “relevant and
material to the charge[d]” offenses. Terrigno, 838 F.2d at 373. Further, “if language in the
indictment constitutes information that the government hopes to properly prove at trial, it cannot be
considered surplusage no matter how prejudicial it may be as long as the information is legally
relevant.” United States v. Gerlay, 2009 WL 3872143 at *1 (D. Alaska, 2009).

1 Defendant’s motion lists 28 items which he requests the Court strike from the indictment. Each
item specifies the language sought to be striken and provides a reason for each request. See Motion to Strike
Surplusage (#351).
2

Case 2:09-cr-00132-JAD-GWF Document 403 Filed 01/14/16 Page 2 of 3


Having reviewed the indictment and pleadings on file in this matter, the Court finds that the
contested paragraphs and portions of paragraphs are relevant to the charged conduct and therefore
should not be striken from the indictment as surplusage. The indictment alleges Defendant and his
co-defendants conspired to sell hundreds of billions of unregistered securities through various
corporate shells beginning no later than 1997. See Second Superseding Indictment (#63). The
identified paragraphs and portions of paragraphs provide context and clarity to the indictment as
whole and lay out the factual specifications of Defendant’s and his co-defendant’s alleged conduct
during the alleged conspiracy. Therefore, the Court finds that the allegations in the indictment are
not inflammatory or prejudicial beyond their intrinsically inculpatory nature. Rather, the statements
are relevant to describe the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged conspiracy. Further,
counsel for the Government has stated that the Government does not intend to read the indictment to
the jury at trial. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike Surplusage (#351) is
denied.

DATED this 14th day of January, 2016.
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge


Read more: http://tfant53.proboards.com/thread/10598/new-document-turino-free-pacer#ixzz3yl2OtTNX