Rubashkin doesn’t deserve new trial, government says

Sholom Rubashkin

The former day-to-day manager at a Postville meatpacking plant should not receive a new trial, argue U.S. prosecutors, because the evidence his attorneys have presented as being new is nothing of the sort.

Sholom M. Rubashkin was sentenced to 27 years in prison in June after being convicted by a federal jury of more than 80 fraud-related charges last fall. In early August, his defense team, led by Nathan Lewin, filed a motion for a new trial on grounds that evidence pointed to inappropriate collaboration between U.S. District Court Chief Judge Linda R. Reade and federal authorities who launched a massive immigration raid on the Agriprocessors meatpacking plant in Postville.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Deegan, who was an integral government prosecutor in the wake of the plant raid, filed the government’s response Tuesday to the motion for a new trial. He flatly states that supposed new evidence presented by Rubashkin’s legal team is not new, and that snippets from quotes and testimony provided by the legal team as a basis for their case were taken out of context to purposefully bolster their own press coverage.

… the law forbids a criminal defendant from gaming the system by seeking recusal after conviction and sentencing based on previously known facts. Upon careful reading, defendant’s motion is revealed for what it is — a frivolous waste of the Court’s time and the public’s resources. Defendant’s motion should be denied without a hearing.

Because the immigration raid at the plant was anticipated to be a massive undertaking — at the time, it was the largest single-site raid in American history and, to this day, remains the second largest in history, Deegan notes that logistically Reade had to involved.  Only days after the raid, detainees were shuffled through makeshift court facilities on a Waterloo fairgrounds site that had been rented by ICE officials. Court officials, according to Deegan’s filing, needed not only to relocate the court for the large numbers of expected detainees, but to procure language translators and Criminal Justice Act panel attorneys, and to prepare handbooks to assist defense counsel for those being detained. .

Knowing the government intended to offer fast-track plea proposals to the vast majority of those prosecuted (but without knowledge of the specifics of those proposals, save the potential for a judicial order of removal), the Court prepared for a large number of initial appearances and potential guilty pleas and sentencings within a short period of time.

Although Reade, as Chief Justice, was privy to many of these logistical concerns prior to the raid Deegan contends that she “was never told, prior to the execution of the search warrants on May 12, 2008, that Agriprocessors was the target of the operation” and “never made aware, prior to May 12, 2008, [that] defendant Sholom Rubashkin had any potential connection to the government’s investigation and planned enforcement action.”

Although defense attorney Lewin noted in his press release announcing the quest for a new trial that the government planned to execute a criminal warrant against a corporate official, Deegan includes an affidavit in the government’s response from Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard L. Murphy which states flatly that the arrest warrant in question was not served on the day of the raid, and was never intended for Sholom Rubashkin.

… Chief Judge Reade was not updated by me or anyone else to my knowledge as “to the status of the investigation concerning Mr. Rubashkin and his plant.” Chief Judge Reade was apprised of primarily logistical and legal matters affecting the court functions at the [Waterloo fairgrounds site]. However, defendant Rubashkin was not identified to Chief Judge Read prior to the May 12, 2008 execution of warrants as the “principal corporate executive targeted by the raid” as suggested at page 10 of defendant’s memorandum. In fact, there was no warrant for defendant’s arrest on May 12, 2008, nor was defendant arrested on that date. There was a warrant issued by Judge Scoles for another company official that was not executed May 12, 2008, and was later returned un-executed. However, that individual has never been apprehended and remains a fugitive on other charges. …

Although Murphy does not specifically identify the person for whom the warrant was intended, it is likely that the warrant was written for either Hosam Amara or Zeev Levi. Amara was a plant supervisor wrapped up in a car dealing scheme that The Iowa Independent first reported as having fled the U.S. Levi, another member of plant management, also fled the country, according to government documents released in November 2008.

Deegan closes his argument against a new trial by arguing that even if Reade was privy to items noted by the Rubashkin legal team and even if objections had been raised during or prior to Rubashkin’s trial, there would still be no reason for the judge to recuse herself from the case.

“For the above reasons, defendant’s motion for new trial should be denied without discovery, without an evidentiary hearing, and without being referred to a different judicial officer,” wrote Deegan.

It will likely be several more weeks before the court makes a decision in the matter.

Government’s Response to Rubashkin’s Motion for a New Trial –