In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Thread, Patreon Song

SDNY COURTHOUSE, June 16 – Iranian banker Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad has been on trial, charged with money laundering and violating US sanctions including through a Venezuelan infrastructure project.

  On March 16, after an unprecedented decision to proceed with ten jurors in the jury room and an eleventh at home, deliberating by video conference or FaceTime, he was found guilty on most charges. Live tweeted thread here.

 Late on Friday, June 5 this news dump: "Re: United States v. Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejadin, 18 Cr. 224 (AJN)  Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits the enclosed application for an order of nolle prosequi of the Indictments filed in this case against Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejadin (“Sadr”) and Bahram Karimi. Respectfully submitted, /s/ GEOFFREY S. BERMAN  United States Attorney"

   On June 9, still without any press release by the SDNY Press Office about this development, this from Judge Nathan: "ORDER as to Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad: On or before June 18, 2020, the Government is ordered to respond to Mr. Sadr's submission, including his specific suggestion for the appropriate mechanism for dismissal, as outlined in Dkt. No. 349. The Government's submission must also include specific answers to the following questions: 1. List all material in the case that was potentially improperly withheld from the defense. a. For each item responding to 1, indicate all Government attorneys who were responsible for the disclosure failures, including supervisors. b. For each item responding to 1, indicate whether the Government agrees or disagrees that the withholding of the item was intentional withholding of exculpatory evidence. (Responses due by 6/18/2020)."

  Now on June 16, a partial answer only on the law, with factual answers pushed back into July, from  Associate U.S. Attorney John McEnany,  the Office’s Criminal Discovery Coordinator and Professional Responsibility Officer for the Office’s Criminal Division: "I cannot provide an appropriate response to the Court’s factual questions by the June 18, 2020, deadline in the Court’s letter. Accordingly the Government respectfully requests an extension of time until July 2, 2020, to respond to those factual questions. The Government respectfully submits the following responses to the Court’s legal questions: The Court’s Introductory Question. On or before June 18, 2020, the Government is ordered to respond to Mr. Sadr’s submission, including his specific suggestion for the appropriate mechanism for dismissal, as outlined in Dkt No.349. Response. The Government agrees that the Court’s order of dismissal should specify that the dismissal is with prejudice. The Government has no objection to the Court including in its Order the language the defendant believes may assist him in any immigration proceedings, namely, that “There was never a judgment of conviction in this case. The jury’s verdict is vacated, and has no legal effect.” The Government respectfully submits that the defendant’s motion for a new trial should be denied as moot given the Government’s determination that the matter should be dismissed with prejudice; any discussion of the lesser alternative of a new trial would seem unnecessary. The Government respectfully submits this Response both to the Court’s question, and in direct response to the defendant’s submission at Docket No. 349.

Question 9. Does the Government agree that even after granting the application for nolle prosequi or dismissing the indictment in the manner requested by the defense, the Court possesses continuing supervisory authority to determine if sanctions are appropriate for any ethical violations and/or prosecutorial misconduct? See United States v. Seltzer, 227 F.3d 36, 41–42 (2d Cir. 2000) (discussing district courts’ inherent power to impose sanctions). Response. Yes."

Back in March: Judge Nathan: "The jury has reached a verdict.... The juror on video conference will stay on until he hears from me further." Jury entering! Judge Nathan: "I'll ask the foreperson. Has the jury asked a unanimous verdict?" Yes.

 Judge Nathan: Count 1, how do you find the defendant, with conspiring to defraud the US? Guilty. Count 2: Guilty.

Judge Nathan (after sidebar) "On Count 3, bank fraud, how do you find? Guilty. Under 1344, prong 1, neither (?) Count 4: bank fraud conspiracy:  Under 1344, prong 1, neither (?) Under 1344, prong 2, guilty

Judge Nathan: Count 5: Guilty. Count 6, money laundering conspiracy: Not guilty. Now polling jurors: one? 2? [soon the virtual juror] Let me confirm the verdict with Juror Number 7... I have confirmed it is his verdict. I will dismiss the jury.

  After Judge Nathan had declined to sent Sadr to jail pending sentencing but instead converted him to home detention, Inner City Press rushed out to do a Periscope video live stream (here) and try to ask Sadr a question. His lawyers left in a yellow cab, then he left. Inner City Press asked, Are you going to appeal? He answered softly, Of course. Then he too got in a yellow cab.

  On March 16 amid the Coronavirus COVID-19 crisis, jury deliberations ran into a problem. SDNY Judge Nathan proposed proceeding with ten jurors in the jury room and one connected from outside by video.

 Assistant US Attorney Michael Krause objected. But Judge Nathan said there are extraordinary circumstances and she would proceed thusly. Inner City Press live tweeted it all: thread here. More on Patreon here.

Ali Sadr is represented by lawyer Reid Weingarten of Steptoe & Johnson and, on November 25 as reported by Inner City Press by Brian M. Heberlig before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Alison J. Nathan.

  On Sunday, March 8 [alongside this song] the US Attorney Office which closed its case on March 9 past 9 pm submitted a letter, below.

 On March 12 in closing arguments, this happened:  As jury charge continues: Judge Nathan has just deployed the old saw about circumstantial evidence, that if people come into a windowless courtroom with wet umbrella, jurors are free to conclude it is raining outside. 

But what about Iran sanctions?

AUSA Krause: The defendant knew what he was doing violated US sanctions against Iran. The defendant is charged with six felonies. Mohammad Sadr was the beneficiary of the payments. ...

It's good to have money, in essence. This is not how lower income defendants are often treated in the SDNY. The case is USA v. Nejad,  18-cr-00224 (Nathan). More on Patreon here

O

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for