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

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Feb 7 – When Larry Ray was arraigned on charges of sexual exploitation, prostitution, forced labor and money laundering on February 12, 2020 he was wearing prison blues and still had a Federal Defender, but no financial affidavit to have FD appointed. Twitter theadette; More on Patreon here. 

  On April 28, 2021, there was a suppression hearing about his arrest and questioning. Inner City Press live tweeted it here and below.

 On December 22 Ray's Federal Defenders requested a jury questionnaire citing adverse publicity "not only in traditional media outlets." But the next sections contains redactions, after the words "Community Bookstore live, and apparently of a URL, because it contains a name. But how then is it confidential?

  On February 4, the Federal Defenders wrote to Judge Lewis J. Liman that "the attorney client relationship between Mr. Ray and his defense team has irreparably broken down... Mr. Ray requests that the Court appoint new counsel." This will be heard on February 7, apparently without call-in line (unlike a February 4 Coinbase oral argument on which, after a request, the line was opened).

 On February 7, Judge Liman issued a detailed order on a number of pre-trial issues which did not directly address Ray's request to change lawyers, except to say "there is some uncertainty whether trial will be able to proceed as scheduled on March 8, 2022." You don't see. The order:  "At today's conference, the defense requested the Court issue an order requiring the Government to amend its bill of particulars to identify the persons it contends are the co-conspirators referred to in the indictment. The Government agreed to identify the persons whose statements during the course of the alleged conspiracy it contends constitute co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) and those persons who are not part of the Government's affirmative case but did things to carry out the aims of the defendants and who therefore may have criminal exposure and criminal culpability. At this time, there is some uncertainty whether trial will be able to proceed as scheduled on March 8, 2022. The defense motion is granted in part and denied in part. The Court previously addressed the defense's argument for a bill of particulars identifying co-conspirators. See United States v. Ray, 2021 WL 3168250 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2021). The Court held that defendants were not entitled to particulars regarding the identification of co-conspirators. Id. at *6. The Court declines to reconsider that ruling now. The purpose of a bill of particulars is to ensure that defendant may "conduct a meaningfully directed investigation of the relevant facts and circumstances and be prepared to respond to the charges." Id. (quoting United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d 225, 235 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). In the Court's judgment, as a matter of the fair and efficient administration of justice, the defense also is entitled to the names of the persons whose statements the Government intends to offer as co-conspirator statements. The Government has moved in limine for the introduction of co-conspirator statements. Without such information, the defense would not be well-positioned to respond to the motion. On the other hand, "[i]t is not the function of a bill of particulars to allow defendants to preview the evidence or theory of the government's case." United States v. Gibson, 175 F. Supp.2d 532, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The Government argues that it has identified certain of the persons whom it claims to be co-conspirators (and whose statements will be offered as in furtherance of the conspiracies alleged in the indictment). It also argues, however, that it does not want its limitation of the witnesses whose statements will be offered as co-conspirators to be held against it; it wants to be able to argue that others whom it has not identified in advance are co-conspirators based on their testimony or the evidence as it develops at trial. The Court finds that argument to be well-founded. The defense is entitled to information regarding the nature of the charges pending against him and the information it needs to investigate the case. It has received ample evidence in the form of the indictment itself as well as in the Government's Rule 16 disclosures and in the prior answers to the request for a bill of particulars. It is not entitled to the details of the Government's evidence, a copy of the Government's opening statement or its closing statement in advance, or toin advancebind the Government further to whom it will later characterize as a co-conspirator. The Court orders the Government to provide to the defense by Thursday, February 10, 2022, a list of all persons whose statements it intends to offer as co-conspirator statements, including also whether it contends that such persons are co-conspirators who acted in furtherance of the conspiracy. The list should also include those persons who are not part of the Government's affirmative case but did things to carry out the aims of the defendants and who therefore may have criminal exposure and criminal culpability. The defense request is otherwise denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 2/7/22)." Watch this site.

 On January 24 for an in-person conference at 2 pm, Judge Liman issued the following order: "ORDER as to Lawrence Ray: The Court has been informed by the United States Marshals that Mr. Ray is refusing to come to Court for the previously scheduled hearing today. The hearing has long been on the calendar, and defense counsel has not submitted a request to excuse Mr. Rays presence. Accordingly, the Court has informed the United States Marshals to deliver Mr. Ray to the courthouse. If necessary, the Court will sign an order authorizing the Marshals to use force to compel his attendance. A copy of this Order will be emailed to counsel for Mr. Ray and for the government. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 1/24/2022)."

  Later, shortly before the scheduled hearing: "ORDER as to Lawrence Ray: The Court has received correspondence from the Government and defendant's counsel stating that they, and Mr. Ray, are prepared to proceed with today's oral argument in-person in Courtroom 15C. The Court rescinds its previous order setting this as a remote hearing and restores it back to an in-person hearing. All counsel and Mr. Ray are expected to appear in-person." Watch this site.

Back on January 6, 2022 Judge Liman held another conference; Inner City Press live tweeted here.

 On January 19, Judge Liman held a Daubert hearing which Inner City Press live tweeted here

hearing on Federal Defenders-proposed expert Joseph Pierre, who's being paid $500/hr for 20 hrs, so far.

Doctor Pierre describes his paid testimony for "sovereign citizens," acknowledged he's not a forensic psychiatrist and never interviewed Ray in person (due to COVID restrictions). Will Judge Liman let him testify?

AUSA Sassoon: You called Mr. Ray's beliefs conspiracy theories. That's not a term in the DSM, right? Dr. Pierre: Right.

AUSA Sassoon: Define delusion-like beliefs. Dr. Pierre: There's not a study. But there's agreement on what it is. [You know it when you see it?]

Dr. Pierre: There's no study saying diagnosis of a sore throat does not involve asking the patient if he or she has a sore throat?

AUSA Sassoon: Wait --

Judge: Let Doctor Pierre talk. [Pause] Or, let me ask. What's the difference between a delusion and an error?

AUSA: Can a person have delusion-like belief and follow the law? Dr. Pierre: Yes. AUSA: They don't explain violent behavior, right? Federal Defender: Objection. Judge: Sustained.

 AUSA: So Larry Ray told you he believed he had been poisoned, at the direction of Bernie Kerik? Dr. Pierre: Correct. AUSA: And that he put a lock on his fridge in New Jersey, right? Dr. Pierre: Yes, I believe it was in New Jersey.

 AUSA: Did it strike you as strange that Larry Ray continued to live with people he thought were poisoning him? Federal Defender: Objection!

Judge: Overruled. Dr. Pierre: I don't like to use the word strange. And we're back: US v. Larry Ray Daubert hearing on whether to allow Dr. Pierre is back on.

During a break, Federal Defenders have been required to provide US Attorney's Office with unredacted copy of Dr. Pierre's notes. AUSA: It was risky? Dr. Pierre: Define that.

 AUSA: And you do not know if, when these emails were written, the writer had a knife to his genitals? Dr. Pierre: I do not...  Judge: Thank you, you are excused.

 Dr. Pierre: Thanks for not making me fly out there. Arraignment on superseding indictment to follow.

Update and conclusion (for this case, for today) Arraignment will not take place - Larry Ray has not received a copy of the superseding indictment. Judge Liman adjourns the Daubert hearing.

 Watch this site.

Back on September 27, Isabella Pollak moved for a continuance (delay) or for severance, noting the third team of lawyers and this volume of discovery: 516,169 images, 1,462 documents, 1043 spreadsheets, 320 audio files, 256 video files and 277 internet files.

On October 8, the US Attorney's Office wrote to Judge Liman that "the Government objects to adjourning the joint trial for the lengthy period of time requested by Pollok [but] does not object to severing Pollok's trial from Ray's, keeping the trial of Ray scheduled for February 2022 and scheduling Pollok's trial for a later date."

But Ray opposes severing Pollok's case. On October 15 Pollok's Hastings on Hudson-based lawyer insisted on severance: "As Judge Learned Hand succinctly stated, '[n]o accused person has any recognizable legal interest in being tried with another, accused with him.' US v. Bronson, 145 F.2d 939, 943 (2d Cir. 1944 (L. Hand, J.)"

On October 18 Pollok's counsel wrote to Judge Liman asking to modify her conditions of release, so she can work overtime at Amazon, which no longer with permit any electronic devices (like GPS bracelets) on the warehouse floor. The US consents to this change.

And on October 19, Judge Liman granted the requests: "MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting [235] LETTER MOTION filed by Isabella Pollok (2), addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Attorney Jill R. Shellow dated 10/18/2021 re: Request to modify conditions of pretrial release. I am writing to request respectfully two modifications to Isabella Pollok's conditions of pretrial release: (1) Ms. Pollok has a curfew from 9PM until 5AM. We respectfully request that the curfew condition be removed. (2) Ms. Pollok wears a GPS ankle bracelet. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the GPS bracelet condition be removed. ENDORSEMENT: REQUEST GRANTED. Bail modifications approved. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 10/19/2021)."

But what about Amazon barring any worker with a GPS bracelet, under pre-trial release (that is, presumed innocent) from working its warehouses?

On October 20, Judge Liman granted severance: "ORDER as to Lawrence Ray, Isabella Pollok. It is hereby ORDERED that the proposed schedule appearing at Dkt. No. 219, setting forth the deadlines related to expert witnesses in the case United States v. Ray, 20-cr-110-LJL-1, is APPROVED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated by the Court on the record at the October 19, 2021, Status Conference, the motion of Isabella Pollok for a continuance is GRANTED and the trials of Lawrence Ray and Isabella Pollok are severed, with Isabella Pollok's trial to begin on July 18, 2022."

On November 11, Veterans Day, the US Attorney's Office wrote to Judge Liman asking to push Ray's trial back to February 22, to enable it to produce 3500 / Giglio material on month in advance of trial. 

On November 19 Pollok filed a motion to suppress all statements she made upon arrest. She says, "At 6 am on February 11, 2020 Ms. Pollak awoke to banging and people shouting FBI." Then statements without Miranda warnings. What will Judge Liman do? Watch this site.

The case is US v. Ray, 20-cr-110 (Liman).

***

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
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: 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 2006-2022 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for