SDNY
Judge Rakoff Admonishes
Defendant Pitterson Who
Testifies To Stick to the
Questions
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Exclusive,
Patreon
Honduras
- The
Source - The
Root - etc
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Oct 31 – Moments before
picking a jury in the criminal
trial in US v. Carlos Smith
Pitterson, U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of
New York Judge Jed S. Rakoff
on October 28 questioned the
defendant's sister Cristela
Smith if she knew what the
word "warrant" meant.
She
said she did.
The
issue was a May 2019 search of
a bedroom in Cristala's Bronx
apartment in which Carlos
sometimes stayed, and in which
heroin and fentanyl were
found. Cristela
Smith on October 28 testified
that the agents who came to
her door stuck a foot in the
door to not allow her to close
it.
But
the government's rebuttal
witness Agent Ramirez said she
never saw such a foot. She
said that Cristela Smith
consented to the search as
long as she could be present
and observe.
Judge Rakoff, twenty minutes
before opening statements,
credited Agent Ramirez'
testimony and denied Smith
Pitterson's motion to dismiss.
He acknowledged that the four
agents' failure to bring up to
the apartment from their car
the consent form raised
doubts.
Smith Pitterson's lawyer
Camille M. Abate then raised
the issue that Judge Rakoff
had refused to the motion to
suppress as "ridiculous."
Judge Rakoff
thanked her for raising it,
and explained that he meant
that the evidence found in the
apartment might not be
material given the other
evidence the government says
it has in the case.
Now on
October 31, Judge Rakoff
questioned Pitterson prior to
him testifying before the
jury. While the defense of
duress has been withdrawn, the
argument is, or was, that to
understand why Pitterson did
what he did, what he heard
from Pepe in Santo Domingo
should be heard.
But when
the testimony actually
happened, Pitterson went
beyond simply answering the
questions his lawyer put to
him. Judge Rakoff called a
sidebar, then sent the jury
home for the day. Pitterson
will continue on November 1 -
and will be cross examined.
Watch this site. The case is US
v. Smith Pitterson,
19-cr-468 (Rakoff).
***
Feedback: Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
Box
20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY
NY 10017
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
|