“A license to practise law is not a license to
break the law,” said US Government prosecuting
attorney Stephen D’Alessandro in his summation for
the prosecution when the trial of Robert Simels
continued in the Brooklyn court yesterday.
The matter got underway around 9:50 hours, some 20
minutes later than usual.
Robert Simels, the former lawyer for self-confessed
Guyanese drug dealer, Shaheed Roger Khan, is on
trial with his assistant attorney, Arienne Irving,
for obstructing justice by the use of intimidatory
tactics against witnesses, for the possession of
wiretapping equipment and more than 12 other counts.
According to D’Alessandro, addressing the jury, in
a crowded courtroom, the defendants Simels and
Irving felt that the rules did not apply to them
when they obstructed the courts of justice and
attempted to intimidate witnesses in the Roger Khan
case.
He told the jury that the two were no longer acting
as lawyers but as criminals sending violent gang
members to go after witnesses.
D’Alessandro told the jury that the prosecution
has fulfilled its obligation by proving beyond any
reasonable doubt that the defendants were guilty of
the charges.
D’Alessandro submitted to the jury that Simels
lied to them, that he was evasive when caught in the
lies and that he told them what he, Simels, wanted
them to believe him and his client.
He stated that even though Shaheed Roger Khan was
not on trial, it was Robert Simels as his attorney,
who corroborated with him and his gang of violent
men, to make sure that Roger Khan’s instructions
were carried out and that Khan be guaranteed a trip
back to Guyana.
He said that the two defendants opted to have
witnesses intimidated in order that they lie
outright or change their testimonies against the
Guyanese drug dealer.
Pointing to Simels’s assistant, Irving,
D’Alessandro said that she assisted Robert Simels
and as such was complicit.
He added that Irving may say that she was influenced
by her boss, but that doing a job does not mean
committing an illegal act.
He also submitted to the jury that Irving had
choices that she could have made.
ROGER KHAN.
D’Alessandro referred to Simels’s client from
where the conspiracy to obstruct justice began.
He described Khan as a major drug dealer who
controlled a gang of violent men who were also
themselves drug dealers, and who were involved in
kidnapping, murder and torture of citizens in
Guyana.
He reminded the jury by showing them photographs of
the members of Khan’s gang (names provided) and
those of Ronald Waddell and Donald Allison as he
went over Selwyn Vaughn’s testimony of how the two
men were killed.
Pointing to Barry Dataram’s photograph, the
prosecuting attorney said that it was Dataram who
managed Khan’s drug exportation to the United
States and named others as members of the ‘Phantom
gang’ that wreaked havoc by carrying out their
boss “Short Man” Khan’s instructions.
He told the jury that the men who presented
themselves as well-dressed people, were assassins.
“They are killers. I don’t care if they wear
Dockers,” D’Alessandro told a hushed courtroom.
“Do you think he is being honest? Do you think he
lies?” he asked the jury.
He then reminded that judge Gleeson had to instruct
Simels eight times to answer a question when the
lawyer, turned defendant, sought to evade the
question.
“I respectfully submit to you that Robert Simels
took the stand and lied. He looked you in the face
and lied …He is a lawyer; he knows the difference
between lies and the truth and he knows how to
answer and how to evade the question.”
Holding the fifty $20 bills in the courtroom,
D’Alessandro said that it was the money that
Simels paid Selwyn Vaughn to use in this quest to
intimidate witnesses.
He told the jury that it is a crime to pay for
someone’s testimony. He pointed that all the
witnesses against Khan in the drug case were named
on a list found in Simels’s office and that the
lawyer mentioned them to Vaughn as those he wanted
to neutralise or change their testimony.
Referring to David Clarke, D’Alessandro said that
Simels told Vaughn that Khan said not to kill the
mother but that he could use any means necessary to
neutralize George Allison, Leslyn Comacho, Alicia
Jagnarine, Farrah Singh, Vijay Jagnarine and Ryan
Pemberton.
TARGETS
Among the targets in the case was to get Vaughn to
lie about Roger Khan on the stand and to get David
Clarke to change his testimony or not testify at all
by paying him.
All that Simels was concerned with was that Vaughn
carry out his and Roger Khan’s instructions and be
careful not to get caught. Irving, D’Alessandro
said was aware of everything.
D’Alessandro said that Simels imported the laptops
to the US and that Khan instructed Simels and Irving
that the base that one of his men in Guyana (name
provided) had was an essential part of the
wiretapping equipment.
The latter was sent to Simels’s office via FedEx
as the FedEx manager testified, he reminded the
jury.
The summation was spiked with the pieces of evidence
being once again shown on large monitors in the
courtroom and the jury again took notes.
The first defense counsel to take the floor was a
Javier Solano, who together with Lawrence Berg is
representing Irving. He told the jury that the
government has not laid any evidence to show his
client was part of any conspiracy and that even her
employer, Robert Simels, said that she was not privy
to several discussions between himself and Vaughn.
He said, too, that Irving saw and treated Vaughn as
an investigator working on the case and not as part
of any violent gang headed by Roger Khan.
And not having traveled to Guyana and meeting the
other members of the Khan outfit, she felt they too
were investigators working with Simels on the Khan
case.
He said that her copious memos bear out that she was
never any part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice
when he asked rhetorically, “Why write memos or a
summary if there was a conspiracy?”
He said, too, that the government agent also said
that Irving’s memos of the meeting were accurate.
The defence attorney said that at two critical
meetings Simels held with Vaughn, his client was on
Jury duties and had traveled to Ireland. He asked
the jury to evaluate the evidence against the two
separately and they would find his client not
guilty.
He said that she had noting to gain by being part of
a conspiracy and everything to lose.
Late in the afternoon, Gerald Shargel rose to
address the jury on behalf of his client, Simels.
He told them that the government’s case was all
about words spoken and that nothing happened.
“There were words but no action,” he reiterated,
saying that it would have taken additional steps to
commit a crime.
“No one was intimidated and no one was obstructed
at the Khan trial.”
There was an attempt of witness tampering and
obstruction but no crime was committed, he said.
He said that the government has not shown any thing
to support that. Its contention is that Simels
planned to commit a crime.
He said his client was doing a duty as any lawyer
would, to defend his client to the best of his
abilities.
He said Simels did so at tremendous risk to his life
as he traveled to Guyana, which he described as a
dangerous place, wracked by civil unrest and
cultural and political divides. He said that Simels
provided proper legal representation to his client
and that even before Khan became his client, Khan
was aided and sponsored by a Minister in the
government of Guyana to purchase the wiretapping
equipment.
He said that the equipment was not put into
operation since it was taken to the US and that
there are doubts even if it can be used.
As such all that his client is aware of is that he
has possession of the laptops and the transmitter
which is being referred to as the Base.
He tore into the US government’s “double
standard” as he called it. He said that Vaughn was
‘sent’ wired to Simels’s office, presenting
himself as one of Khan employees, who was prepared
to assist his ‘boss man’ in whatever legal way
he could have.
Shargel said that there was no whiff of misconduct.
Instead it was perfectly legal for the government to
record Khan’s conversations while he was at the
Metropolitan correctional centre and that the law
permitted Vaughn to record Simels’s conversation.
He said that Vaughn was further rewarded by the
government by being paid US$15,000 for his
cooperation.
He described as “priceless” the S-visas granted
to Vaughn’s wife and children to reside in the US.
He told the jury that it was not his client who
introduced wrongdoings into the case. He said that
it was Vaughn who did, as he told Simels of making
witnesses disappear, become affected by amnesia or
be paid to not testify or to change their
testimonies.
Shargel told the jury that the matters raised by
Vaughn, the government witness, were peripheral at
best.
None, he said, was followed up by Vaughn to further
allow Simels to implement any of the schemes he,
Vaughn, raised.
He told the jury that there was a gaping hole in the
prosecution case, as he added that whatever Roger
Khan was in Guyana, he was not a hero in the US. He
said his client rose to the challenge to ensure his
client’s rights to a fair trial and that his
rights were not trampled upon.
He urged the jury to look at the evidence before
them and they would see that Simels never intended
to violate any legal statutes.
Simels, he said, is a lawyer anyone would want to
have defend them because he works tirelessly and
leaves no stone unturned to find the truth.
He said that in the Roger Khan case, no false
documents were presented, no stone was left
unturned, and after 35 years of practising law,
Simels is before the jury where he ought not to be.
As the day ended, Judge Gleeson instructed the jury
that their mission is to find whether the government
has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.
He said their verdict is not to send any message.
Today when the matters continue, the prosecution
will rebut and the judge will deliver the charge to
the jury.
It is highly anticipated that the matter could
conclude by Friday this week.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009