Greetings and salutations neighbors, as you may be aware, Mr. Rayful Edmond has petitioned the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for a reduction in his original sentence. Mr. Edmond's petition for reduction of his original sentence is being supported by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie K. Liu. On Friday, 10 January 2020, representatives for Mr. Edmond filed its "PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW" in support of his petition. It should be noted not anywhere in this filing do Mr. Edmond's representatives address the three (3) community forums, conducted by the Honorable Karl Racine, DC Attorney General by order of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Emmet G. Sullivan where District of Columbia residents commented on his petition, many in clear opposition, to include residents' concerns expressed in the 5D Court Watch Community Impact Statement.
The following are bulleted highlights from the latest filing with a copy [wording] of the actual PDF filing converted via MS Word formatting. The addresses and telephone numbers for Counsels have been hidden. For the record, I testified twice in opposition to Mr. Edmond's request for sentence reduction. The next hearing date is scheduled for 12 February 2020.
Robert
---------------------------------
● Mr. Edmond Provided Substantial Assistance to the Government.
● Mr. Edmond's decision to cooperate was not based on a desire for personal gain.
● Mr. Edmond provided the government with assistance in obtaining wiretaps.
● Mr. Edmond assisted the residents of Simple City Benning Terrace by helping to negotiate a truce between two gangs at war.
● Mr. Edmond assisted the government by identifying problems in the federal penitentiary telephone system.
● Mr. Edmond had no prior criminal history.
● Mr. Edmond has evolved as a person.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES :
v. : Crim. Nos. 89-162-01 (EGS)
RAYFUL EDMOND III, : Hearing: Feb. 12, 2020
Defendant :
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Mr. Rayful Edmond III, through undersigned counsel, pursuant to the Courts order at the conclusion of the October 16, 2019, hearing in the above captioned matter, respectfully submits Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
I. Introduction
This matter came before the Court for a hearing on October 16, 2019, upon the
Government's Motion to Reduce Mr. Rayful Edmond III's sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b)(2)(c)[1]. Having considered the substantial record in this case, consisting of pleadings filed by counsel, testimony and evidence presented during the October 16, 2019, hearing, and various other submissions, the Court should make the following findings of facts and conclusions of law.
On September 17, 1990, Mr. Edmond was sentenced to life in prison and has been incarcerated at various Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities since that time. Nearly four years later, on July 20, 1994, Mr. Edmond agreed to cooperate in a government investigation into drug trafficking operations in which he was involved at the United States Penitentiary (USP)
Lewisberg, Pennsylvania.
II. Mr. Edmond Provided Substantial Assistance to the Government.
a. Mr. Edmond's decision to cooperate was not based on a desire for personal gain.
The Court heard testimony from Steven Benjamin, a former Special Agent in the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). Agent Benjamin joined the FBI in 1976, but encountered Mr. Edmond for the first time at a small hotel on July 24, 1990, when Mr. Edmond was removed from his placement at USP Lewisberg under rouse of a medical emergency for an unexpected visit with Agent Benjamin (FBI), Detective Rick Watkins (MPD), and Detective William Nealis (MPD). (TR 46-47) At the hearing Agent Benjamin made it clear that this "meeting" was impromptu and a total surprise to Mr. Edmond. Agent Benjamin testified that Mr. Edmond had not been given and forewarning or heads up whatsoever regarding the hotel meeting that would take place or the subject matter that would be discussed during that meeting. The purpose of this meeting was for law enforcement to lay out its case to Mr. Edmond and present the evidence amassed against him as a result of a two-year wiretap investigation of which Mr. Edmond was a target. The objective was to speak to Mr. Edmond about "what his options might be, whether he'd like to cooperate or not". (TR 46) The purpose of this meeting was to give Mr. Edmond an opportunity to cooperate, however, "it was made very clear" that Mr. Edmond was not to be offered any chance at assistance for his cooperation. (TR 109:11-12). In spite of that he made the decision to cooperate (TR 109:21-22).
Agent Benjamin's memory and recollection of detail was remarkably clear. His clarity was in recalling events from over twenty years ago was likely the result of how admittedly impressed Agent Benjamin was with Mr. Edmond the very first time he met him in the hotel room that day. Agent Benjamin used the word "extraordinary" at certain key junctures in his testimony that should not be ignored and cannot be understated. Agent Benjamin explained to this Court that over the course of his 14 years of working drug cases he had worked with hundreds of cooperators. During his testimony he professed that even in light of the vast number of cooperators that he has dealt with Mr. Edmond was "exceptional in every way…You know, he was – I'll say this is in kind of a weird way, it'll sound weird, but part of the team,, basically. I mean, he was all in, no matter what we asked him to do, you know, he was willing to do. (TR 54-56). While this description of Mr. Edmond's cooperation is important (and will be addressed later) the truly astonishing way that Agent Benjamin describes Mr. Edmond's demeanor when he arrived at the hotel on July 20, 2014, is noteworthy to say the least. Agent Benjamin describes this encounter as one of his "extraordinary moments in law enforcement" and specifically describes Mr. Edmond's demeanor as "extraordinarily calm". (TR 47). At the hearing Agent Williams that Mr. Edmond broke down and cried during the interaction at the Pennsylvania hotel. According to Agent Benjamin, he and the detectives present were "stunned" by what they witnessed that day. (TR 48). AUSA John Dominguez testified about Mr. Edmond's "remarkable" phrase, "What took you so long?" (TR 75:19-20).
Asking Officers what took them so long to come to him was not so much of a question as it was a declaration of relief. It is important to take a moment and discuss this statement as it is one of the purist reflections of Mr. Edmond's mindset at the time. When Mr. Edmond was approached, he had already made the decision that he wanted to turn his life around, so when he was propositioned to cooperate, his acceptance was a mere formality. In addition to breaking down that day, Mr. Edmond told officers, "I didn't know how to get out of this. [referring to the illegal drug trade] I got started, and I didn't know how to stop it. I am ready to stop it…maybe I can do good now". testified about Mr. Edmond's "remarkable" phrase, "What took you so long?"
On July 20, 1994, Mr. Edmond had been looking for a way out of the drug business. Importantly, he made the decision on his own - before there was ever a written agreement - that he wanted to quit and that he would change his life and attempt to make amends for the devastation and destruction left in the wake of his criminal conduct. Mr. Edmond has spent the past twenty-five years executing his plan of redemption and attempting to right the many wrongs of his past by assisting the United States Attorney's Office in its many investigations into criminal activity throughout the country. To be sure, Agent Benjamin was convinced that Mr. Edmond "was trying to make an effort to right all the wrongs that he did, as substantial as they are." (TR 53:22-24).
b. Mr. Edmond provided the government with assistance in obtaining wiretaps.
It is undisputed that Mr. Edmond provided invaluable information that allowed the government to seek and obtain wiretaps in a large number of cases. These wiretaps lead to an astounding 111 indictments and the conviction of 340 defendants. The information that Mr. Edmond provided "allowed the government to receive several orders to tap telephones, here in the District of Columbia used, by narcotics traffickers…that led to a number of indictments and a number of defendants being prosecuted". (TR 28:11-18). The information that Mr. Edmond provided was very important and crucial information to those prosecutions. (TR 28:24-25). AUSA John Dominguez described that the government used Mr. Edmond as a "compass". Indeed, according to Mr. Dominguez, Mr. Edmond was debriefed from Monday thru Friday, beginning in August and ending around the Thanksgiving holiday. (TR 80:10-12). During these debriefings Mr. Edmond provided information about crimes and criminal conduct and assisted in interpreting thousands and thousands of wiretaps (TR 80:19-22).
c. Mr. Edmond assisted the government by providing extensive trial testimony.
1. Mr. Edmond's testimony at trial assisted the government in obtaining convictions and guilty pleas.
After hearing the very compelling testimony describing Mr. Edmonds road to cooperation as told by Agent Benjamin, the Court heard from Former MPD officer, Barbara Watkins, who was detailed to the FBI and working with Steve Benjamin, Rick Watkins, and William Nealis in the mid to late 90's when she met Mr. Edmonds (TR 60:12-21). When Officer Watkins met Mr. Edmond, he had already begun cooperating. (TR 60, ln 25 – 61 ln 1). Officer Watkins testified that Mr. Edmonds gave information regarding four or five different cases. (TR 62:3-5). Most notably, Mr. Edmonds testified in the trial of Kevin Gray for about four days and gave extensive testimony that resulted in Mr. Gray's conviction. (TR 61:11-13). This testimony and cooperation were significant as the Kevin Gray trial involved "one of the larger, more violent groups ever prosecuted here in Washington. (TR 27:23-25). When asked to describe Mr. Edmonds demeanor during the preparatory debriefing sessions, Officer Watkins described that, "[i]t was kind of funny because we couldn't keep up with how fast he was giving us the information, so we were trying to write, and he's steadily pouring out the information. So, he was very upfront and informative." (TR 61:18-23) Although, Amy Jeffress, the prosecutor in the Kevin Gray case was not available to testify on Mr. Edmond's behalf or to describe in detail the intricacies of his cooperation in the Kevin Gray case, the record is sufficiently clear that "Kevin Gray and his crew were responsible for over 30 homicides in the D.C. area". (TR 61:10-11).
Mr. Edmond was also produced to testify as a witness for the government in a case in
North Carolina. Mr. Edmond provided testimony by the Bureau of Prisons U.S. Marshals as a witness in that case to the Assistant U.S. Attorney, but the case ended up not going to trial and was resolved by plea. (TR 86:1-10).
Not only did the information that Mr. Edmond provided produce potential trial testimony, but it produced other cooperators that led to more valuable information that led to additional arrests, prosecutions, and convictions. Phyllis Webster is an example of one such cooperator. AUSA John Dominguez testified that he prosecuted Phyllis Webster and ultimately turned her into a cooperator. (TR 86:11-13). The information that Mr. Edmond provided was useful for establishing the probable cause needed to get a wiretap in the Phyllis Webster case. (TR 87:1011).
Finally, Mr. Dominguez testified that Mr. Edmond was willing to testify in the government's case against Bill Willis. This was a case that involved money laundering and drug trafficking. Mr. Edmond's cooperation included informing the government about his past dealings with Mr. Willis and the operation of his business. Mr. Edmond's testimony was not required in this case due to the fact that Bill Willis plead guilty. (TR 91:17-20).
- Mr. Edmond assisted the residents of Simple City Benning Terrace by helping to negotiate a truce between two gangs at war.
In 1997, Mr. Edmond worked with the Alliance of Concerned Men to intervene in and put an end to an ongoing war between two youth gangs. Mr. Edmond called into a meeting and spoke to the youth about their behavior and inevitable ramifications they would face if they did not make changes (TR 115:2-12). The impact of Mr. Edmond's words had a clear impact as the violence decreased after the meeting. (TR 115:20-25, 116:19).
e. Mr. Edmond provided assistance which lead to the resolution of ten cold case homicides in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Edmond was very helpful when working with Agent Jimmy Caudle to help develop and eliminate suspects. (TR 67:5-14). He provided historical information to law enforcement investigating cold case homicides in the Washington D.C. Although the information was "historical" it helped guide investigations … [ensure] scarce resources were used as best as they could to solve…cold case homicides." (TR 29:14-15).
- Mr. Edmond assisted the government by identifying problems in the federal penitentiary telephone system.
In addition to cooperation directed at specific criminal cases, Mr. Edmond provided invaluable information to the Office of the Inspector General and the Department of Justice about serious problems within the penitentiary system which allowed criminal activity to persist within the penitentiary. One of the problems identified by Mr. Edmond, was the penitentiary phone system. Mr. Edmond's cooperation was an important factor in helping the government develop "… very important prison reforms …". (TR 92:4-15). At the hearing in this matter Mr. Dominguez observed that one of the more difficult parts of the investigation was changing things within the Department of Justice. (TR 92:12-14).
In order to affect this change Mr. Edmond met with the Inspector General's office to discuss how he used the phones at USP Lewisberg to complete illegal drug transactions. (TR 87:19-22). He was interviewed extensively about the vulnerabilities of the phone system that was in place, and Mr. Edmond was candid about how easy it was for he and other inmates to abuse the privileges to make criminal phone calls on those phones…" (TR 94:14-16).
The information that Mr. Edmond provided was a great force for change within the Bureau of Prisons in that his information led to changes that prevented inmates from making three-way calls, and restricted an individual inmate calls a limited amount of people on preapproved calling lists. AUSA Dominguez testified that Mr. Edmond's help led to a "huge" change on the BOP's system and aided the BOP in "accomplishing its mission of incapacitating people who have been removed from society for crimes." (TR 94:2-8). When he testified, Mr. Dominguez was persuaded that even though no one was prosecuted for the conduct that took place over the phones, Mr. Edmond was an instrument of change that was for the good and had provided substantial assistance to law enforcement by way of the assistant lent regarding the reformation of the phone system in the BOP. (TR 95:8-12).
- Mr. Edmond's cooperation was held in the highest regards by the government and law.
When directly asked where Mr. Edmond's cooperation ranked on a scale of 1 to 10,
AUSA Dominguez proclaimed that his cooperation was "off the charts", "exceptional". Dominguez declared that nothing in his 35 years of being an AUSA compares to the level of cooperation given by Mr. Edmond. (TR 98:2-8). Mr. Dominguez was clearly impressed. When the Court asked about Mr. Edmond's value as a cooperator to law enforcement, AUSA Dominguez explained that Mr. Edmond was at the "top of the list". (TR 101:21). To be absolutely clear this "list" is a list that includes Alberto "Alpo" Martinez[2], who plead guilty to 15 homicides and had "tremendous" value as a cooperator, and the infamous Wayne Perry.
There is no question that Mr. Edmond's cooperation constituted substantial assistance. As the government has previously stated, Mr. Edmond's cooperation was "… important and wide and deep". (TR 31:6-7). Information that Mr. Edmond provided in 1998 continued to be of value for a decade after 1998 (TR 90:9-1). The government continued to use the information that Mr. Edmond had provided in the original debriefings from '94 to '98 long after the written plea agreement was satisfied by the reduction of sentence to his mother, Constance D. Perry. The cooperation was so extensive much of it could not be investigated and or used until after his Mother's sentence was modified in 1998. Thus, the information given was not acting upon in time for his mother to receive the benefit of it. She ultimately received a 28-month reduction.
During the course of his cooperation there wasn't one time that the government determined that the information provided was contradictory and there was that Mr. Edmond was not willing to talk about. (TR 54:2-9). On a scale of 1 to 10 every law enforcement officer that testified rated the quality of Mr. Edmond's cooperation above a 10.
II. The Value of Mr. Edmond's Cooperation Warrants a Substantial Reduction in Sentence.
A. The Government's Recommendation should be utilized as a starting point in the Court's analysis.
In 2014, AUSA Dominguez recommended, albeit informally, that Mr. Edmond's assistance warranted a reduction in his sentence to time served. The US Attorney's office has now, arbitrarily, changed its recommendation and is requesting this Court reduce Mr. Edmond's sentence to only 40 years. No explanation or justification has been put forth to explain the government's reasoning for the change. Although the Court should consider government's recommendation as a starting point for its analysis, the extent of any reduction granted is within the court's discretion. US v. Raymond, 293 F.Supp.2d 930, 932-3 (2003).
B. The Court is permitted to consider the §3553(a) factors in its analysis.
a. Unwarranted Sentencing disparities
The most pertinent §3553(a) factor in this matter is unwarranted sentencing disparities. When determining the appropriate sentence, the sentencing judge must be "… aware of the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among other defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct." 18 U.S.C.A. §355(a)(6). Thus, this Court has the authority to take into consideration sentences imposed on other similarly situated defendants when determining the appropriate sentence in the matter at bar.
Defendant first directs the Court to the case of Salvatore "Sammy the Bull" Gravano. Mr. Gravano, like Mr. Edmond, was a leader of a criminal enterprise who, subsequently, began cooperating with the government. By the time he was indicted, Mr. Gravano had led a criminal enterprise for over thirteen years. His organization was widespread, far reaching and operated within the vastly larger organization of the Gambino family, an organized crime family. It has been reported that the Gambino crime family had been in operation since 1921 and its reach extended across the United States. Mr. Gravano, known as an underboss, was a leader within this organization and, by his own admission, personally participated in nineteen murders. Mr. Gravano was charged with thirteen counts of racketeering, murder, illegal gambling, loansharking and obstruction of justice. After his decision to cooperate, Mr. Gravano admitted to additional crimes including numerous other murders, extortion, robberies, burglaries and assaults although he formally plead guilty to one count of violating the RICO Act.
At the time of his sentencing, the government recommended a sentence which was considerably less than the forty years they are now seeking in Mr. Edmond's case. In Mr. Gravano's case the government's recommendation was five years. Mr. Gravano was subsequently sentenced to five years in accordance with that recommendation.
In comparison, Mr. Edmond led an enterprise for four years, from 1985 until 1989. Further, as the government concedes, Mr. Edmond has never been implicated in any crime of violence. (TR 49:25-50:1). However here, the government inexplicablyrecommends a 40 years sentence for Mr. Edmond. There is no dispute that both Mr. Edmond and Mr. Gravano were leaders of high-profile criminal enterprises and that both cases garner substantial attention from the media. However, the imposition of such starkly different sentences - 5 years for Mr. Gravano and 40 years for Mr. Edmond – would undoubtedly constitute an unwarranted disparity.
Similar to the Gravano matter, is the case of Alberto "Alpo" Martinez, who was arrested here in Washington, DC in 1991. Like Mr. Edmond and Mr. Gravano, Mr. Martinez was also a leader of a high-profile drug enterprise. Mr. Martinez's operation, similar to Mr. Gravano's, spread across numerous states. At the time of his indictment, Mr. Martinez was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, various drug offenses and fourteen counts of murder. Upon information and belief, after his decision to cooperate, Mr. Martinez confessed to ten murders. Thereafter, the government recommended a sentence of thirty-five years for Mr. Martinez. In contrast, Mr. Edmond has never participated in any murders or acts of violence, and there has been no credible evidence indicating otherwise. Despite the substantial differences in culpability, the government believes Mr. Edmond should receive a higher sentence than someone who, admittedly, committed numerous acts of violence. As was the case with Mr. Gravano, the imposition of forty-year sentence in Mr. Edmond's case would undoubtedly constitute an unwarranted sentence disparity.
C. Mr. Edmond had no prior criminal history.
Another pertinent factor for this Court to consider is As this Court weighs and considers the value of Mr. Edmond's t is important to note that Mr. Edmond's underlying offenses for his § 848 conviction were not crimes of violence and he had no prior criminal history
D. The court may assign points to each instance of assistance to determine the appropriate reduction to which a defendant is entitled.
In US v Washington, 293 F.Supp.2d 930 (2003), the Court, when analyzing the appropriate reduction in sentence for the defendant, utilized a system whereby the judge deducted points from the defendant's offense level for each instance of cooperation. There, the defendant, who had been charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846, had an offense level of 29 and a criminal history category III. Id. at 932. The defendant subsequently came before the court on a Rule 35(b) motion and, after considering the relevant factors, the judge granted defendant an eight-level downward reduction of his offense level. Id. at 934. In explaining his reasoning, the judge utilized a point system, whereby he assigned the defendant points for each instance of assistance provided to the government. Id. at 934. The judge also assigned points for the defendant's truthfulness, completeness reliability, and the nature and extent of his cooperation. Id. 934-5. The risk assumed by the defendant and posed to his family during his cooperation was also assigned points. Id.
A similar point system can be utilized by the court in the matter sub judice. When taking into consideration each instance of assistance, the nature and extent of Mr. Edmond's cooperation, his truthfulness, completeness reliability, as well as the risk posed to him and his family it is clear that value of Mr. Edmond's cooperation is significantly more than the forty-year recommendation of the government. Defendant proposes the following point reduction for his assistance to the government:
1. Assistance in the Kevin Gray matter – 6-point reduction
- Mr. Edmond was a key witness in this prosecution of Kevin Gray and his codefendants. Mr. Gray ran one of the most violent drug tracking organizations in
Washington D.C. and was responsible for over 30 homicides. (TR 61:10-13). Over
the course of nearly a week, Mr. Edmond testified in open court about his knowledge and former affiliation with Mr. Gray and his organization. Mr. Edmond's testimony helped debunk the defense's argument that Mr. Gray had limited culpability due to his learning disabilities. As a result of his assistance the government was able to secure multiple convictions in this case.
- Assistance in Phyllis Webster Case – 4-point reduction
- Phyllis Webster was a notorious drug dealer to whom Mr. Edmond had previously sold drugs. His assistance to the government in this matter included obtaining Ms. Webster's cellular telephone number and the location of her restaurant. The government used this information to obtain a wiretap and, subsequently, an indictment. After being indicted, Ms. Webster plead guilty and began cooperating with the government leading to a host of other arrests.
- Assistance in Bill Willis Case – 2-point reduction
- Mr. Edmond provided information about Mr. Willis' money laundering operation. Although Mr. Willis ultimately plead guilty, Mr. Edmond was prepared and willing to testify.
- Assistance in North Carolina Case – 2-point reduction
- Mr. Edmond was a key witness in this drug case. In addition to providing information which assisted the government in its prosecution pretrial, Mr. Edmond also testified in open court.
- Assistance in Erskine Hartwell Case – 2-point reduction
- Mr. Edmond provided the government with background information pertaining to Mr. Hartwell's criminal activity. This information was used in the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Hartwell.
- DC cold case homicides – 20-point reduction
- Although prosecutors ultimately declined to prosecute these cases, Mr. Edmond provide assistance which allowed Metropolitan Police to close 10 previously unsolved homicides including the murders of Frank Goodwine, Marcus Haynes and
Thelman Hampton.
- Information in for wiretap affidavits – 4-point reduction
- Mr. Edmond was repeatedly used to corroborate information used in applications for wiretaps. According to AUSA Dominguez, this corroboration is critical to the success of the prosecutors. (TR 89:7-8). The information the government obtained from Mr. Edmond continued to be valuable for a decade after 1998. (TR 90:9-11). To date, the exact number of wiretap affidavits acquired through Mr. Edmond's assistance is unknown. However, it is undisputed that the wiretaps acquired lead to the conviction of more than 100 defendants.
- Decoding/translating wiretap recordings – 4-point reduction
- For months, Mr. Edmond spent several hours a day for three or four days at a time with law enforcement officers assisting them with decoding wiretap recordings. This was particularly helpful on occasions when law enforcement did not understand what was being said on recordings. Mr. Edmond's assistance allowed the government the better understand targets in their investigations and build cases against them.
- Ending gang war in Washington, DC – 1-point reduction
- While incarcerated, Mr. Edmond called into a meeting between various members of two rival gangs. Through speaking with young men at the meeting, Mr. Edmond was able to broker a truce between the two gangs. This truce put an end to the violence that had consumed the neighborhood.
- Acting as a compass to the government – 1-point reduction
- Mr. Edmond provided the government with valuable assistance in the preliminary phase of many investigations. This information allowed the government to narrow the scope of their investigation and hone in on specific targets. Using Mr. Edmond's information allowed the government to preserve time and resources. According to former metropolitan police officer Rick Watkins, Mr. Edmond helped point law enforcement in the right directions in cases where they were lost. (TR 6814-17).
- Risk related to cooperation for twenty-four years – 4-point reduction
- Over the last twenty-four years, Mr. Edmond has provided the government with substantial assistance in a vast number of cases. This cooperation required Mr. Edmond to testify in open court on at least two occasions and be prepared and willing to testify in other cases that ultimately resulted in a plea.
Mr. Edmond's current offense level is a 38[3]. If the Court were inclined to accept these proposed allocations, there would be a resulting fifty-point reduction in Mr. Edmond's offense
level. Although Mr. Edmond is not asking the Court to impose such a reduction, it is important to note that high number is directly indicative of the extensive, extraordinary assistance Mr. Edmond has provided the government. It further illustrates that the government's recommendation of forty-years is ill-informed at best, and completely arbitrary at worst.
E. Mr. Edmond has evolved as a person.
There is no dispute among the numerous law enforcement officers who have worked with Mr. Edmond over the last twenty-four years that Mr. Edmond has evolved as a person. It is important to note that his cooperation was not birthed out of a desire to obtain a benefit. When approached by law enforcement, Mr. Edmond asked what had taken them so long. Mr. Edmond indicated almost immediately that he wanted to do good. (TR 50:16-7). Mr. Edmond voluntarily began assisting the government without having a written agreement in place.
On a scale from one to ten, Mr. Edmond was repeatedly ranked at an eleven due to his candor, accuracy and transparency. The law enforcement officers who worked directly with Mr. Edmond have repeatedly regarded him as an extraordinary cooperator, exceeding their expectations. (TR 68:2-5). After making the decision to cooperate, Mr. Edmond was a faucet of information, pouring out so much information that the government was unable to get to and make use of all of it. (TR 69:4-15). Although his formal cooperation has ended, Mr. Edmond has continued to assist the government as recent as 2018.
There can be no doubt that Mr. Edmond is not the same man who was sentenced in 1991. Through growth and maturation, Mr. Edmond has acknowledged and accepted responsibility for the extensive harmed the citizens of Washington, DC suffered as a result of his crimes. He has undoubtedly devoted himself to working to improve the community around him. Using his own poor choices and mistakes as an example, Mr. Edmond counseled youth in the Pennsylvania jail and here in Washington, D.C. (TR 145:3-6). Despite having already provided the government with substantial assistance, Mr. Edmond's continued willingness to help as needed is reflective of his continued commitment to amends for the misdeeds of his past. (TR 153:20-25).
III. CONCLUSION
The district court must make two inquiries when considering a motion files pursuant to Rule
35(b). First, it must determine whether the defendant in fact provided substantial assistance. United States v. Katsman, 905 F.3d 672, 674 (2d Cir. 2018) (citing United States v. Tadio, 663 F.3d 1042, 1047-48 (2011); See also United States v. Park, 533 F.Supp.2d 474, 476 (S.D.N.Y.
2008). Second, if so, it must then determine what, if any, reduction in sentence is warranted. Id. Having sufficiently established that Mr. Edmond has provided the government with substantial assistance, the Court must now determine the value of that assistance in the form of a reduction in sentence. In doing so, the district court is permitted to consider all relevant sentencing factors. United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 190, 196 (2012). Specifically, the district court may consider the § 3553(a) factors and it may also use those non-assistance factors as the basis to "… reduce the sentence by an amount greater than, less than, or the same as what the defendant's assistance, considered alone, would warrant." Tadio, 663 F.3d 1042, 1055 (2011); see also. Katsman, 905 F.3d 672, 675 (2018). However, the amount of the reduction "… must be determined in reference to the starting point and by considering the non-assistance factors in combination with the amount of assistance rendered by the defendant." Id. While the court should use the Government's recommendation as a start point, it is in no way bound to accept the recommendation. Washington, 293 F.Supp.2d 930, 932-3 (2003). Rule 35(b) affords district court judges with 'broad discretion to depart from the guidelines after considering such factors as the "utility, reliability, risk and timeliness" of the defendant's cooperation. US v. Canoy, 38 F.3d 893, 331 (1994). Any sentence imposed by the district court must be related to the degree of assistance rendered, but the court may consider non-assistance factors when awarding a reduction, "… whether that reduction is greater than, less than, or equal to the reduction that a defendant's assistance, considered alone, would warrant." Tadio, 663 F.3d, 1043 (2011). Taking the government's forty-year recommendation as a starting point, the court should now look to the vast number of instances in which Mr. Edmond offered assistance to the government, the nature and extent of that cooperation, as well as his truthfulness and reliability and the risk to which he and his family were exposed as result of his assistance. Mr. Edmonds should be awarded a reduction is sentence that is as vast, wide and deep as the level of his assistance to the government. Should this Court elect to follow the point system identified in Washington, Mr. Edmond would be entitled to a significant downward reduction of his offense level. Although the total proposed point reduction exceeds the defendant's actual offense level, it is the most accurate quantification of Mr. Edmond's assistance and, unlike the government's arbitrary recommendation, provides a reasonable basis for the reduction in sentence. The totality of Mr. Edmond's assistance would warrant at least a ten-level reduction.
Should this Court decline to utilize the point system, a reduction in sentence consistent with the average reduction for a defendant convicted of a continuing criminal enterprise offense, with the same adjusted offense level, is the next appropriate sentence – 15.4 years. It is important to note that 15.4 is an average, meaning there were some defendants who received a larger reduction.
Respectfully Submitted,
_________/s/________________
Tiffani S. Collins, Esq.
Pro Hac Vice
Collins Legal Group, LLC
_________/s/________________
Joseph P. Caleb, Esq.
Bar No. 495383
CalebLaw, PLLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing pleading was filed and served via ECF, this 10th day of January 2020, upon the U.S. Attorney's Office and to counsel of record.
/s/
________________________ Tiffani S. Collins, Esquire
"And I will not be silent…" - to injustice, racism, bigotry and white supremacy - "…as long as I am breathing."
[1] The government's Motion to Reduce was prompted by Mr. Edmond's Motion to Compel Government Filing of Substantial Assistance Motion for Sentence Reduction on August 22, 2018.
[2] As a result of Alpo Martinez' cooperation the government was able to solve 15 additional homicides and secure convictions against 48 of his drug trafficking associates. [October 16th 'TR 101: 21-25 – 102:1-3]. Martinez received separate sentences of in Virginia of 30 years and 15 years, and a sentence of 30 years in the District of Columbia – all of which were to run consecutively for a total of 75 years. Mr. Martinez benefitted from credit for substantial assistance and has been released from custody and home since approximately 2016. [October 16th 'TR 102:4-17].
[3] On October 11, 2019, Kell Kraemer-Soares calculated Mr. Edmond's offense level as a 44. This calculation erroneously included a two-point enhancement related to possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon. Mr. Edmond has no such convictions. It is well settled that any fact which increases the mandatory minimum is considered an "element" of the crime and must be submitted to the jury. Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013).
0 comments:
Post a Comment