New developments in federal corruption case involving former state Senator Efraín González, Jr. may yield a plea nix. González has been awaiting sentencing for taking a plea deal after being pressured to do so by his counsel. That was back in May of 2009. He may have been improperly advised.
On November 9, 2009, Federal Justice William H. Pauley held an emergency hearing in his chamber after receiving correspondence from González' son, Carlos González (41). YFP has learned that Carlos described an impasse to the judge between Efraín González, Jr. and his counsel, Murray Richmond, and alleged this impasse existed from January of 2009, five months prior to his plea.
Carlos González also stated that Richmond has never been in the possession of discovery information turned over for the case by the government after the indictment was unsealed. That amounts to an approximate 23 boxes of evidence since 2006, and an additional 104 boxes turned over by the government in March of 2008.
It would seem impossible for counsel to adequately prepare for trial if no due diligence of critical documents were ever properly inspected. We were able to reach Carlos González, but he declined discussion on the matter.
Nevertheless, Judge Pauley dismissed Murray Richmond from the case. and appointed new counsel, Lance Croffet Suade of Linklaters, a well-known law firm representing clients worldwide.
In Suade's first appearance in court on Friday, November 20, 2009, Suade successfully argued that time was necessary for him to review the case. Suade's first course of action is to review all evidence, to include all items of discovery. The next court appearance is scheduled for January 29, 2010. At that date, the judge will possibly entertain new motions. All options are available. One of the options on the table may be to rescind the original plea, especially if it's determined by Suade that González was wrongfully persuaded.
We'll just have to wait and see.
In the meanwhile, Justice Pauley ordered both the government and defense to get together and bring each other up to speed about the circumstances that lead to the original plea. In addition, the government needs to explain how they arrived at the alleged $200,000 they're claiming González, Jr. benefited from, and show specifics on how they reached that conclusion.
This amount is vastly different compared to the original charge of $423,000 that was presented to the Grand Jury leading to the original indictment. What were the reasons that caused the government to drop $200,000 plus from the case? Were they fishing originally? Could it be that the remaining $200,000 falls under the same fishing expedition? Is there clear evidence that member item monies were misappropriated and used to benefit González? That's something I'm sure that Mr. Suade will get to the bottom of.
No comments:
Post a Comment