U.S. v. Kemp
| Decision Date | 20 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Action No. 04-370-03.,Criminal Action No. 04-370-02.,Criminal Action No. 04-370-04.,Criminal Action No. 04-370-05.,Criminal Action No. 04-370-06. |
| Citation | 379 F.Supp.2d 690 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Corey KEMP, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
John D. Tortorella, Kevin H. Marino, Marino & Associates, P.C., Lawrence S. Lustberg, Crummy, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger and Vecchione, Newark, NJ, Anthony T. Chambers, Detroit, MI, Lewis Myers, Jr., Chicago, IL, Nathaniel E. Jones, Jr., Baltimore, MD, Nino V. Tinari, Thomas H. Suddath, Jr., Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.
Michael A. Schwartz, Richard J. Zack, Robert A. Zauzmer, Catherine Votaw, Joseph F. Minni, William B. Carr, Jr., Joan L. Markman, United States Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .....................................................................693
II. Motions for Judgment of Acquittal ................................................696
III. Motions for New Trial-Common Issues ..............................................698
A. Refusal to Allow a Continuance of the Trial ..................................698
B. Conduct of Voir Dire .........................................................699
C. The Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in the Handling of the Voir Dire ......703
D. The Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Excusing Juror No. 11 ..............705
IV. Kemp's Motions for New Trial — Applicable to Defendant Kemp ................708
A. Kemp Has Not Shown Any Brady Violations Warranting a New Trial ...............708
1. Contentions of Defendant Kemp.............................................708
2. Government's Contentions .................................................708
3. Discussion ...............................................................708
B. The Batson Challenges Were Properly Overruled ................................710
C. The Undersigned Appropriately Denied Kemp's Motion for Recusal ...............711
D. Kemp Was Not Prejudiced by Denial of Severance of Offenses ...................711
E. The Court Did Not Deprive Kemp of a Fair Trial by the Ingrid
McDaniels Rulings ..........................................................712
V. The Court Properly Revoked Kemp's Bail and Required Him To Start Serving
his Sentence Immediately .......................................................714
VI. Conclusion .......................................................................715
I. Introduction
On June 29, 2004, a grand jury returned a 56 count indictment charging twelve individuals with various criminal activities, focusing on the conduct of Ronald White, Esquire, a Philadelphia lawyer, and Corey Kemp, who had been the Treasurer of the City of Philadelphia.
Count 1, by far the longest count in the indictment, charged six of the defendants with conspiracy to deprive the citizens of Philadelphia of the honest services of City Treasurer Kemp. In addition, all of the defendants were charged with mail and/or wire fraud, perjury, and/or false statements to the FBI. Kemp was also charged with money laundering, extortion and tax evasion.
This Memorandum concerns the post-trial motions of the five defendants, all charged with conspiracy, who went to trial, beginning on February 14, 2005. Of the other defendants, Ronald White died prior to trial; Denis Carlson was acquitted of the charges against him of making false statements to the FBI; and five defendants entered guilty pleas.
This Memorandum has been prepared and filed following the sentencing of two defendants, Janice Knight, who was convicted of two counts of making false statements to the FBI, and Corey Kemp, who was convicted of conspiracy and 26 other substantive counts, but acquitted on eight counts. The jury was unable to agree on a verdict on the conspiracy charge against Knight and five counts against Kemp. However, three of the issues discussed below (trial date, voir dire and excuse of Juror No. 11), and decisions made following a hearing on July 18, 2005, arise out of pretrial and trial rulings, applicable to all defendants, and impact on portions of the motions for new trial of the other three defendants, LaVan Hawkins, Stephen Umbrell and Glenn Holck, albeit other grounds alleged by them that have not yet been fully briefed or argued.
There were extensive pretrial proceedings in this case. Shortly after the indictment, all of the defendants having retained counsel, the Court issued several Pretrial Orders ("PTOs") which are summarized in the chart below. In addition, the record will show that the Court had pretrial conferences approximately once per month following the return of the indictment, and that the trial date was a topic at all of these conferences. Conferences occurred on the following dates:
Date Docket No. of Transcript
July 20, 2004 57
August 25, 2004 138
September 14, 2004 151
October 13, 2004 216
November 23, 2004 288
December 21, 2004 303
January 24, 2005 414
Two of the above conferences (August 25, 2004 and September 14, 2004) included discussions between the Court and defense counsel out of the presence of the prosecutors. Sealed transcripts of those discussions are docketed at Nos. 139 and 154.
Also, during the pretrial proceedings and trial, the Court issued a series of orders and opinions (totaling over 200 pages) on various topics. Because these prior opinions will be referred to from time to time, but their contents not repeated, the Court will summarize them as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Holck
...fraud. The extensive background of this case, which included a lengthy trial, is set forth this Court's prior Memorandum, U.S. v. Kemp, 379 F.Supp.2d 690 (2005), and other Memoranda identified therein. The Court issued an Order dated September 29, 2005 denying defendants' motions for acquit......
-
United States v. Dimora, CASE NO. 1:10CR387
...appeal. As such, the motion wholly fails to support Dimora's request for release pending appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Kemp, 379 F. Supp. 2d 690 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (motion for bond pending appeal denied where defendant failed to identify any substantial questions law or fact). Further, w......