8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
1/80
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
COA #: 13-2500
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
KWAME KILPATRICK
Defendant/Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of MichiganSouthern Division
APPELLANTS BRIEF
Harold Gurewitz (P14468)
Attorney for AppellantGurewitz & Raben, PLC
333 W. Fort Street, Suite 1400Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 628-4733
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 1
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
2/80
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Authorities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Statement in Support of Request for Oral Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Statement of Subject Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Statement of the Case and Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. Statement of Proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. Adoption of Statement of Facts by Appellant Bobby Ferguson in CaseNo. 14-1120 and Kilpatricks Additional Facts... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
C. Conflict of Interest Chronology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Summary of the Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
I. KWAME KILPATRICK WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CONFLICT-FREEREPRESENTATION GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND
SHOULD BE GRANTED ANEW TRIAL... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Standard of Review: This Court reviews district court legal
conclusions concerning defense counsel conflicts of interest de novo,and the underlying factual bases upon which the courts conclusionsrest, for clear error. United States v. Osborne, 402 F3d 626,630 (6th
Cir. 2005).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A. THOMAS ANDNAUGHTON HAD CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
ADVERSE TO THE OREILLY FIRM TO WHICH THEY
WERE OF COUNSEL ATTORNEYS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
-ii-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 2
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
3/80
B. THE COURT DENIED KILPATRICK HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO CONFLICT-FREE COUNSEL BECAUSE IT FAILED
TO THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE AND RESOLVE THOMASANDNAUGHTONS CONFLICTS AFTER IT WAS ON
NOTICE OF THEM... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
C. THOMASANDNAUGHTONS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
DEPRIVED KILPATRICK OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
ISSUE II: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ALLOWING LAY OPINION
TESTIMONY BY CASE AGENTS THAT LACKED
FOUNDATION REQUIRED BY FRE701AND THAT
EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF THE RULE.THE ERROR WAS
NOT HARMLESS... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Standard of Review: This court reviews district court evidentiaryrulings, including rulings on witness testimony under FRE 701 forabuse of discretion. United States v. Freeman, 730 F3d 590, 595 (6th
Cir. 2013).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A. TESTIMONY ASDEFACTOEXPERTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
B. HEARSAY -TESTIMONY BY AGENTS FROM REVIEW OFRECORDS... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
C. INTERPRETATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
1. Kilpatrick Civic Fund. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2. DLZ And Contracts CM-2012, 2014 and 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3. Inland Waters and Contracts 1361 and 1368. . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4. Heilman Recreation Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5. Baby Creek and Patton Park PC-748. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
-iii-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 3
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
4/80
6. Synagro. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
D. THE COURTS ERROR IN ADMITTING THE AGENTSTESTIMONY WASNOT HARMLESS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
III. R ESTITUTION TO DWSDAND IRSWASNOT AUTHORIZED BY 18USC3664A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Standard of Review: This Court reviews de novowhether a restitutionorder is permitted. The amount of restitution is reviewed for abuse ofdiscretion. United States v. Williams, 612 F3d 500, 510 (6 Cir,th
2010). This court abuses its discretion when it applies an improperlegal standard. United States v. Andrews, 88 Fed Appx 903, 908 (6th
Cir, 2004).... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
IV. ADOPTION OF ARGUMENTS BY CO-DEFENDANT BOBBY W.FERGUSONIN UNITED STATES V.BOBBY W.FERGUSON,SIXTH CIRCUIT CASENO.14-1120... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Certificate of Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Proof of Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Addendum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
-iv-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 4
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
5/80
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
SUPREME COURT CASES: Page
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 US 335 (1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 32
Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 US 475 (1978).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 19, 25
Hughey v. United States, 495 US 411 (1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Mickens v. Taylor,535 US 162 (2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 33, 34
Nix v. Whiteside, 106 S Ct 988 (1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 692 (1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Wood v. Georgia,450 US 261 (1981).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
SIXTH CIRCUIT CASES:
Centra, Inc. v. Estrin, 538 F3d 402 (2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 20
Harris v. Carter, 337 F3d 758 (2003).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
McFarland v. Yukins, 356 F3d 688 (2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 19, 29, 33
United States v. Andrews, 88 Fed Appx 903 (2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
United States v. Butler, 297 F3d 505 (2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
United States v. Edkins, 421 Fed Appx 511 (11/18/10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
United States v. Freeman, 730 F3d 590 (2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 35, 38
United States v. Osborne, 402 F3d 626 (2005).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
United States v. Williams, 612 F3d 500 (6 Cir, 2010).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61th
-v-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 5
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
6/80
OTHER CIRCUIT CASES:
Atley v. Ault, 191 F3d 865 (8 Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30th
Salts v. Epps,676 F3d 468 (5 Cir. 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
th
Selsor v. Kaiser, 81 F3d 1492 (10 Cir. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30th
The People ex rel. Dept. of Corp. v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc.,20 Cal. 4 1135, 980 P2d 371 (1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-24th
United States v. Anderson, 545 F3d 1072 (DC Cir. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
United States v. Badaracco, 954 F2d 928 (3 Cir, 1992).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62rd
United States v. Batson,608 F3d 630 (9 Cir. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62th
United States v. Figueroa-Lopez,125 F3d 1241 (9 Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47th
United States v. Freeman, 498 F3d 893 (9 Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41th
United States v. Galloway, 509 F3d 1246 (10th Cir, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61-62
United States v. Garcia,413 F3d 201 (2 Cir. 2005).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41nd
United States v. George, 403 F3d 470 (7th Cir, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
United States v. Grinage, 390 F3d 746 (2 Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41nd
United States v. Hampton, 718 F3d 978 (DC Cir. 2013). . . . . . . . . . . 41, 42, 43, 60
United States v. Jayyousi, 657 F3d 1085 (11 Cir. 2011).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39th
United States v. Johnson, 617 F3d 286 (4 Cir. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41, 42, 47th
United States v. Levy,25 F3d 146 (2 Cir. 1994).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33nd
-vi-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 6
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
7/80
United States v. Peoples, 250 F3d 630 (8 Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41, 47, 60th
STATE OFMICHIGAN CASES
Avink v. SMG, 282 Mich App 110 (2009).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
RULES &STATUTES
Harvard Law Review, 98 Harv L Rev 1023, n.5, 1985. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Pollack, Milton,Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings,129 FRD 201 (1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
FRE701. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
-vii-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 7
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
8/80
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Pursuant to FRAP 34(a)(1) and Sixth Circuit Rule 34(a), Appellant Kwame
Kilpatrick respectfully requests oral argument. Counsel for Appellant believes oral
argument will assist this Court in rendering its decision because of the complex
and extensive record and because of the nature of the legal issues.
-viii-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 8
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
9/80
STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER
AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PURSUANT TO FRAPRULE 28(A)(4)
The federal district court had jurisdiction of this case pursuant to 18 USC
3231 because the Government alleged violations of 18 USC 666(a); 1341,
1343, 1951, 1962(d), and 26 USC 7201 and 7206. The Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1291.
The appeal is from the district courts Judgment dated December 17, 2013.
(R516, Judgment, Pg ID 16446).
-1-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 9
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
10/80
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
I. KWAME KILPATRICK WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CONFLICT-FREE
REPRESENTATION GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT ANDSHOULD BE GRANTED ANEW TRIAL
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ALLOWING LAY OPINION TESTIMONYBY CASE AGENTS THAT LACKED FOUNDATION REQUIRED BY FRE701AND THAT EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF THE RULE.THE ERROR
WASNOT HARMLESS.
III. R ESTITUTION TO DWSDAND IRSWASNOT AUTHORIZED BY 18USC3664A.
IV. ADOPTION OF ARGUMENTS BY CO-DEFENDANT BOBBY W.FERGUSONIN UNITED STATES V.BOBBY W.FERGUSON,SIXTH CIRCUIT CASENO.14-1120.
-2-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 10
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
11/80
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
A. PROCEEDINGS
Kwame Kilpatrick (Kilpatrick) was charged as the only defendant in a 14-
count Indictment on June 23, 2010, with fraud and tax offenses. (R1, Indictment,
Pg ID 16-30). A First Superseding Indictment that added a charge of RICO
Conspiracy was filed on December 15, 2010. (R20, 1 Superseding Indictment, Pgst
ID 65-155). It named Kilpatrick, Bobby Ferguson, Bernard Kilpatrick (Kwame
Kilpatricks father), and Victor Mercado as defendants.
Trial began on September 6, 2012, on charges contained in the Fourth
Superseding Indictment - Redacted (although not electronically docketed until
February 15, 2013), in which Kilpatrick was charged in 30 counts. (R274, 4 th
Superseding Indictment-Redacted, Pg ID 2166-90). Those charges were: Count 1,
RICO conspiracy in violation of 18 USC 1962(d) (Id, Pg ID 2166-76); Counts 2-
5 and 7-10, extortion under color of official right and fear of economic harm in
violation of 18 USC 1951 (Id, Pg ID 2177-81); Counts 16-17, bribery concerning
programs receiving federal funds in violation of 18 USC 666(a) (Id, Pg ID 2181-
82); Counts 18-30, mail or wire fraud in violation of 18 USC 1341 or 1343 (Id,
Pg ID 2182-84); Counts 31-35, subscribing false tax returns for the calendar years
2004-2007 in violation of 26 USC 7206(1) (Id, Pg ID 2184-87); and, Count 36,
-3-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 11
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
12/80
income tax evasion in violation of 26 USC 7201. (Id, Pg ID 2188). Count 11
incorporated all but the tax offenses as part of the alleged conspiracy. James
Thomas (Thomas) filed his appearance as counsel at Kilpatricks arraignment on
the Indictment. (R4, Appearance, Pg ID 37). Thomas was appointed to represent
Kilpatrick pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act two days later. (R8, CJA 20, Pg ID
42). Michael Naughton (Naughton) was also appointed as counsel for Kilpatrick
pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act (for technical support). (R12, Order Granting
Secondary Counsel, Pg ID 51-52).
Trial concluded on March 11, 2013 with the return of guilty verdicts for
Kilpatrick on 24 counts: Count 1, RICO conspiracy; Counts 2-5 and 9, Extortion;
Count 17, Bribery; Counts 18-26, Mail fraud; Counts 28, 30,Wire fraud; Counts
31-35, Subscribing false tax returns; and, Count 36, Income tax evasion. (R277
Verdict Form, Pg ID 2213-34).
Kilpatrick was sentenced on October 10, 2013, to 336 months (28 years)
All four defendants were charged in Count 1. Ferguson was also charged1
together with Kilpatrick in Counts 2 -5, 7-10 and 16-17. (R274, 4 Supersedingth
Indictment, Redacted, Pg ID 2166-90). Mercado entered a guilty plea during trialon November 5, 2012 to a charge of conspiracy in violation of 18 USC371.(R245, 5 Superseding Information, Pg ID 1826-29; R247, Rule 11 Agreement, Pgth
ID 1831-38). Derrick Miller entered a guilty plea before trial, on September 12,2011, to bribery and subscribing to a false tax return.(R67, 2 Supersedingnd
Information, Pg ID 252-54; R70, Rule 11 Agreement, Pg ID 258-78).
-4-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 12
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
13/80
custody and three years supervised release. (R516, Judgment, Pg ID 16450-51).
On December 17, 2013, the court entered a judgment that included forfeiture in the
amount of $4,584,423; and restitution of $4,584,423 to the Detroit Water and
Sewerage Department (DWSD) and $195,403.61 to the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS). (Id, Pg ID 16453).2
B. ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF FACTS BY APPELLANT BOBBY FERGUSON IN
CASENO.14-1120AND KILPATRICKS ADDITIONAL FACTS.
Pursuant to FRAP 28(i), Kilpatrick hereby adopts by reference the
Statement of Facts appearing in Appellant Bobby Fergusons brief, Case No. 14-
1120, at pages 6-23. Additional facts on behalf of Kilpatrick are set forth below.
The Governments presentation of evidence at trial followed its indictment
allegations that Kilpatrick received funds during his tenure as mayor from co-
defendant Bobby Ferguson (Ferguson), others doing business with the city, and
from a non-profit civic organization he had established, the Kilpatrick Civic Fund
(KCF), that he did not report on his tax returns. Kilpatrick was the Mayor of the
Ferguson was convicted of Count 1, RICO; Counts 2-5 and 7-9 -2
Extortion; and, 17, Bribery. He was sentenced to 252 months custody. (R519,Judgment, Pg ID 16474-85). Bernard Kilpatrick was found guilty on one count ofviolating 26 USC 7206, Subscribing False Tax Return. He was sentenced to a
term of 15 months custody. (R518, Judgment, Pg ID 16467-73). Miller andMercado were each sentenced to 1 day custody, time served. (R557, MercadoJudgment, Pg ID 16805-10; R558, Miller Judgment, Pg ID 16811-16).
-5-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 13
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
14/80
City of Detroit from January 2002 until he resigned in September 2008. Much of
the testimony at trial concerned Ferguson, his companies, and work his companies
performed on city contracts. It was part of the Governments theory that Kilpatrick
steered city construction contracts to Ferguson and that Ferguson shared his
profits with Kilpatrick. (R301, TR 9/21/12, Govt Opening, Pg ID 4661-63; R406,
TR 2/11/13, Govt Closing, Pg ID 14452). Fergusons profits on that work also
were used to determine Kilpatricks sentence guidelines pursuant to USSG 2C.1,
and imposition of a 28 year sentence. (R492, 10/10/13, Sentencing, Pg ID 16165-
67, 16220-21).
Ferguson performed excavation work for the city prior to the Kilpatrick
administration. He was a long time friend of the mayor and it was understood by
Derrick Miller, Kilpatricks chief of staff, that he should help Ferguson in his
dealings with the city. (R385, TR 1/7/13, Miller, Pg ID 12136-43). Ferguson
aggressively sought out work with engineering companies doing work on city
contracts for his companies, Ferguson Enterprises, Inc, (FEI), and Xcel
Construction Services (Xcel). (R352, TR 10/26/12, Hardiman, Pg ID 8090). He
was more difficult to negotiate with than other contractors and often pushed hard
for more work, more money, or both. (R350, TR 10/24/12, Rajadhyaksha, Pg ID
7768; R372, TR 12/6/12, McCann, Pg ID 10297; R370, TR 12/5/12, Soave, Pg ID
-6-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 14
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
15/80
10049). One firm, Lakeshore Engineering (Lakeshore), chose to include
Ferguson as part of its team on a city contract because he was doing a lot of work
for the city and seemed to know how to get things done in the city administration.
(R352, TR 10/26/12, Hardiman, Pg ID 8127).
Fergusons companies typically performed excavation subcontractors for
large engineering firms specialized in performing municipal infrastructure work.
(Id, Pg ID 8072). These firms included Walbridge Aldinger (Walbridge), a
diversified engineering company with about $2 billion in revenues. (R379, TR
12/19/12, Parker, Pg ID 11168); Lakeshore Engineering, that performed municipal
contracts ranging in size from $500,000 to $250 Million (R356, TR 11/15/12,
Rachmale, Pg ID 8632); DLZ, a 700 employee company that had about $700
million in gross revenue (R350, TR 10/24/12, Rajadhyaksha, Pg ID 7750-52); and,
Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc. (Inland) an engineering firm specialized in
municipal infrastructure work. (R370, TR 12/5/12, Soave, Pg ID 10027-31). Each
had a history of doing work for the Detroit Water and Sewer Department
(DWSD).
From 2002 to 2008, DWSD sought bids on as many as 60 contracts, having
a total value of about $2.7 billion, to maintain its operations, to supply water, and
to provide sewerage services for most of southeastern Michigan. The DWSD
-7-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 15
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
16/80
operates the third largest system of its kind in the United States. (R348, TR
10/22/12, Edwards, Pg ID 7485-88). It was run by a director appointed by the
mayor. From 2003 to 2008, the Director was Victor Mercado (Mercado). (Id, Pg
ID 7488). He reported both to the mayor and to the supervising federal court judge
under the federal consent decree. (Id, Pg ID 7490-91).
The DWSDs complicated contracting process includes solicitation and
evaluation of bids or proposals. City finance, law and human rights departments
play roles as well, including equalization of bids pursuant to city ordinances to
give preferences to city contractors. (Id, Pg ID 7492-98). DWSD contracts finally
must be authorized by a city council vote, without any required approval by the
mayor. In certain cases, the Mayor acting as Special Administrator, was
empowered to sign contracts without a city council vote. The Mayors status as
Special Administrator was the result of his appointment by a federal court judge
acting in a lawsuit filed in 1977 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
alleging department violations of federal regulations. (Id, Pg ID 7487-91, 7508).
Only three of the contracts referred to in the Indictment were issued based on this
authority: DLZ contract CM-2012 (Id, Pg ID 7510-13); Walbridge contract PC-
748 (R386, Miller, TR 1/8/13, Pg ID 12255-56); and, Inland contract CS-1368,
Amendment IV (sewer collapse)(Id, Pg ID 12217-18). None of the other contracts
-8-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 16
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
17/80
had a need to pass over the mayors desk for his signature.
Testimony about the contracting process with DLZ, Walbridge, Lakeshore
and Inland came from owners or executives of those companies. The only ones to
testify about any contact with Kilpatrick were Anthony Soave of Inland (R370, TR
12/5/12, Soave, Pg ID 10035-36) and Bernard Parker of Walbridge (R379, TR
12/19/12, Parker, Pg ID 11156).
Evidence of Kilpatricks knowledge or any involvement in the contracting
process was otherwise based on text messages or intercepted calls. FBI Agent
Robert Beeckman (Beeckman) and EPA Criminal Investigator Carol
Paszkiewicz (Paszkiewicz) testified in a serial fashion, about a dozen times
each, for each of the contracts and other parts of the RICO allegations as narrators
of the Governments case to interpret the messages and explain involvement of
city officials assisting Ferguson at Kilpatricks direction, the so-called steering.
(R409, TR 2/15/13, Govt Rebuttal Closing, Pg ID 14773).
C. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHRONOLOGY
A chronology of events relevant to the conflicts of interest discussed in
Issue I is as follows:
2005 Thomas represents Gaspar Fiore (Fiore) in a federalinvestigation concerning a local public bus system in 2005.(R203, Memo re Conflict, Pg ID 1581-82).
-9-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 17
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
18/80
2007 Thomas represents Fiore in 2007 in a federal investigation inwhich it is alleged that Fiore made a $25,000 contribution tothe Kilpatrick campaign in July, 2004, through a PACmaintained by the Allen Brothers Law Firm. (R206, TR 8/7/12,
Hearing, Pg ID 1684-86).
2008 Thomas begins representing Kilpatrick in a series of nine
separate matters. (R203, Memo re Conflict, Pg ID 1581-82).
2010 Thomas refers Fiore to another attorney, Robert Morgan, in2010. (Id, Pg ID 1580-86).
6/23/10 An Indictment is filed naming Kilpatrick in 19 counts of mailand wire fraud and tax violations. (R1, Indictment, Pg ID 16-
30).
7/15/10 Thomas is appointed to represent Kilpatrick in the criminalcase for the purpose of continuity. (R203, Memo re Conflict,Pg ID 1586; R362, TR 8/14/12, Hearing, Pg ID 9386-87).
Naughton is also appointed as a technical support attorney.
(R12, Order, Pg ID 51).
12/15/10 A 1 Superseding Indictment (R20, Pg ID 65-155) is filedst
adding charges of RICO, bribery, and extortion, and addingBobby Ferguson, Bernard Kilpatrick, Victor Mercado andDerrick A. Miller as defendants.
7/18/11 A civil Complaint is filed inMacomb Interceptor DrainDrainage District v. Kwame M. Kilpatrick, et al.Case No. 11-CV-13101, US District Court, Eastern District of Michigan.(Macomb Drain litigation). (11-13101: R1, Complaint). It3
names 32 individuals or businesses as defendants, including
Kilpatrick as the lead defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff is thelaw firm of OReilly Rancilio, P.C. (the OReilly firm). The
Record references hereinafter for the Macomb Drain litigation will be3
referred to as 11-13101.
-10-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 18
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
19/80
suit alleges a RICO claim parallel to the criminal indictmentagainst Kilpatrick. It attaches the criminal indictment asExhibit A. Also named as defendants are: Mercado, Ferguson,Derrick Miller and Bernard Kilpatrick.
9/15/11 Thomas and Naughton file an answer to the civil complaint onbehalf of Kilpatrick on September 15, 2011. (11-13101: R42,
Answer To Complaint, Pg ID 471-83).
11/16/11 Third Superseding Indictment is filed (R72, Pg ID 280-380).
1/24/12 Fiore is interviewed by the FBI concerning his contribution tothe Kilpatrick campaign. (R203, Memo re Conflict, Pg ID1587).
2/03/12 The OReilly firm moves to amend the complaint in theMacomb Drain litigation to add substantial factual
background information regarding (a) the larger scheme atissue in this case... (11-13101: R176, Motion to File AmendedComplaint, Pg ID 2542-46).
2/10/12 Thomas and Naughton move to withdraw as counsel forKilpatrick in the civil case citing their inability to work with
Kilpatrick. (11-13101: R181, Motion To Withdraw, Pg ID2832).
2/15/12 Fiore testifies before the grand jury about, inter alia, his
$25,000 campaign contribution made through the AllenBrothers Law Firm PAC. (Memo re Conflict, Pg ID 1606;R206, TR 8/7/12, Conference, Pg ID 1687).
2/15/12 A Fourth Superseding Indictment (R74) is filed against
Kilpatrick and others adding allegations that the Kilpatrickenterprise received $80,000 from Fiore between 2003 and 2008
to influence the award of Detroit Police towing contracts andthat Fiore was extorted by Kilpatrick and Ferguson.
-11-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 19
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
20/80
2/17/12 Thomas and Naughton re-file their motion to withdraw in thecivil suit with a Kilpatrick stipulation to the withdrawal. Themotion is held in abeyance to allow Kilpatrick to obtain othercounsel. (11:13101: R197 Order Holding In Abeyance, Pg ID
2978-79).
3/12/12 The court in the civil case enters an order to hold counsels
motion in abeyance to allow Kilpatrick to obtain substitutecounsel, citing the complexity and Kilpatricks central role inthe case.(11:13101: R197, Order Holding In Abeyance, Pg ID2978-79).
3/21/12 Thomas and Naughton notify the court in the civil case thatthey must withdraw for a separate reason, because they will
become of counsel to the OReilly firm on April 1, 2012 andwill have disqualifying conflicts of interest mandatingwithdrawal pursuant to Rules of Professional Responsibility.
(11-13101: R198, SupplementTo Motion To Withdraw, Pg ID2980-82).
3/28/12 Judge Cleland issues an order in the civil case granting theirmotion to withdraw. (11-13101: R199, Order Granting MotionTo Withdraw, Pg ID 2984-86).
4/1/12 Thomas and Naughton become of counsel to the OReilly firm.(R203, Memo re Conflict, Pg ID 1581).
4/3/12 Thomas receives the FBI 302 of Fiores interview. (Id, Pg ID1587).
6/1/12 Thomas receives the Government witness list listing Fiore as awitness against Kilpatrick. (Id, Pg ID 1588).
8/7/12 Thomas and Kilpatrick meet with Judge Edmunds. Thomastells Judge Edmunds that he cannot cross-examine Fiore andthat Kilpatrick wants him to withdraw because of his conflict.
(R206, TR 8/7/12, Conference, Pg ID 1672-89).
-12-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 20
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
21/80
8/9/12 Judge Edmunds asks the parties to brief every possible conflictof which counsel or defendants are aware, including theconflict involving representation of conflicting interests,specifically the representation of the plaintiff in the Macomb
Drain litigation by the OReilly firm, as discussed in the DetroitFree Press that day. (R204, Govt Response to PotentialConflict, Pg ID 1654).
8/13/12 The Governments Brief on conflicts says that to resolveThomas prior representation conflict it would withdraw theFiore allegations in the Indictment. It briefly adds that Thomasrelationship to the OReilly firm constituted no conflict
because of its understanding of Thomas separate primaryoffice and file system. (Id, Pg ID 1644).
8/13/12 Thomas brief says that his attorney-client relationship withKilpatrick was unfettered until a complication arose concerning
prior representation of a witness. He says that his relationshipwith the OReilly firm includes separate offices and filesystems. (Id, Pg ID 1654).
8/14/12 A conflict hearing is held before Judge Edmunds. Thomas saysthat he should have seen the OReilly Macomb Drain litigation
and Kilpatrick conflict issue; that disciplinary rules requireconsent from each client, and that he did not get it. (R362, TR8/14/12, Hearing, Pg ID 9393). Kilpatrick says that he learnedof the full scope of the Fiore conflict on 8/7/12 and he was
losing confidence in Thomas. (Id, Pg ID 9403-9404; R203,Memo re Conflict, Exhibit 4: Kilpatrick Affidavit, Pg. ID 1620,1621-22).4
Kilpatrick signed a conflict waiver in January 2011 that referred to
4
Thomas prior representation of Fiore (R203, Memo re Conflict, Waiver, Pg ID1616-17), before he was aware Thomas had represented Fiore in a federal
investigation relating to the $25,000 contribution. (R362, TR 8/14/12, Hearing, PgID 9388; R203, Memo re Conflict, Exhibit 4: Kilpatrick Aff., Pg. ID 1622) Atthat time, while there was a disclosure of the representation of Witness A, it was
-13-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 21
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
22/80
8/15/12 Judge Edmunds issues an order refusing to disqualify Thomasand Naughton. She finds no prior representation conflict
because the government would dismiss the Fiore allegations.Concerning Thomas and Naughtons of counsel relationship to
the OReilly firm, which was suing Kilpatrick for the sameRICO allegations they were defending in the indictment, thetrial court finds their conduct concerns prior representation (it
refers to MRPC 1.10(b), and that Thomas and Naughtonsseparation of physical space and files, along with appointmentof another attorney to cross-examine witnesses connected to theMacomb Drain litigation, will be sufficient. (R199, Opinion &Order, Pg ID 1561, 1563-67).
9/6/12 The criminal trial begins.
9/24/12 Plaintiffs, represented by the OReilly firm, to which Thomasand Naughton are of counsel, move a second time to amend theComplaint in the civil case alleging that additional facts hadcome to light, and add allegations about the Kilpatrick schemeand Kilpatrick enterprise and unlawful payments to Kilpatrick.
(11-13101: R240, Motion to Amend, Pg ID 4047-48).
10/31/12 Judge Cleland grants Summary Judgment to the civil
defendants and denies the Plaintiffs motion to amend. (11-13101: R251, Opinion & Order Granting Summary Judgmentand Denying Motion to Amend Complaint, Pg ID 4469-77).
11/14/12 Plaintiffs move for reconsideration and allege that informaldiscovery from co-defendants and from the criminal
proceedings in the ongoing trial support their new allegations.(11-13101: R256, Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration, PgID 4774-83).
1/31/13 The Government rests and the defense began presentation of
witnesses in the criminal trial.
represented to be in an unrelated matter. (Id).
-14-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 22
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
23/80
2/11/13 Closing arguments begin in the criminal case. Judge Clelanddenies the motion for reconsideration in the civil case. (11-13101: R289, Amended Opinion & Order, Pg ID 5486-97).
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
In Issue One, Kilpatrick argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment
right to effective assistance of counsel and to be represented by counsel free of the
conflicts of interest that arose when Kilpatricks counsel, Thomas and Naughton,
became of counsel to the OReilly firm on April 1, 2012, about six months before
the start of Kilpatricks trial. The OReilly firm was then counsel for the Macomb
Intermediate Drain Drainage District (MIDDD), a local government body suing
Kilpatrick in the Macomb Drain litigation for claimed substantial overbilling on
work done to repair a major sewer collapse in its jurisdiction. Its lawsuit
incorporated allegations of Kilpatricks indictment. The MIDDD claimed it was
the victim of a massive scheme orchestrated by Kilpatrick to steer contracts to
Bobby Ferguson. The Inland contracts were part of that scheme. As a result,
Thomas and Naughton were defending Kilpatrick in the criminal case on the very
same alleged acts of corruption that the firm to which they were of counsel sought
to establish in a parallel civil suit.
Kilpatrick also argues in Issue I that he was denied his Sixth Amendment
right to counsel by the district court when it failed to conduct the kind of hearing
-15-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 23
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
24/80
required byHolloway v. Arkansas, 435 US 475 (1978), and when it failed to
replace Thomas and Naughton. Kilpatrick also argues that his counsel had an
actual conflict and was denied their effective representation because they failed to
bring their conflict to the attention of the court in the criminal case for over five
months,McFarland v. Yukins,356 F3d 688 (6 Cir, 2004) while the courtth
scheduled pre-trial and trial proceedings.
In Issue II, Kilpatrick asks for a new trial because the district court erred by
allowing two case agents to repeatedly include inadmissible evidence in the guise
of lay opinion testimony. Defendants objected in a pre-trial motion in limine
because the testimony would be without foundation of the witnesses personal
knowledge. During trial, the agents together testified a total of 23 times to
introduce text messages, recorded calls, or documents related to the various parts
of the lengthy case. Their testimony was repeatedly based on their entire
investigation, a shorthand reference to the more than 300,000 text messages,
numerous intercepted calls and volumes of documents never presented to the jury,
on which they relied for their opinions. Their testimony included hearsay and
expert opinions. They told the jury what conclusions to draw. United States v.
Freeman, 730 F3d 590 (6 Cir. 2013). The courts abuse of discretion in allowingth
the testimony was not harmless error. The agents interpretations of text messages
-16-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 24
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
25/80
and intercepted calls was a pervasive part of the trial. It cannot be concluded
beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.
In Issue III, Kilpatrick asks that this Court conclude that the district court
order requiring restitution to the DWSD of $4,584,423, be reversed because the
court relied on evidence of profit instead of loss. He also asks this Court to
conclude that the District Court was without authority to order $195,403.61 be
paid to the IRS.
ARGUMENT
ISSUEI: KWAME KILPATRICK WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CONFLICT FREE
REPRESENTATION GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND
SHOULD BE GRANTED A NEW TRIAL.
Standard of Review:This Court reviews district court legalconclusions de novo, and the underlying factual bases upon which thecourts conclusions rest, for clear error. United States v. Osborne, 402
F3d 626, 630 (6 Cir. 2005).th
A. THOMAS ANDNAUGHTON HAD CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ADVERSE TO
THE OREILLY FIRM TO WHICH THEY WERE OF COUNSEL
ATTORNEYS.
Thomas and Naughton created disqualifying conflicts of interest for
themselves when they joined the OReilly law firm as of counsel attorneys on
April 1, 2012. As a result of their affiliation, the OReilly firm was then suing
Kilpatrick in a civil case while Thomas and Naughton as associated attorneys were
-17-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 25
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
26/80
defending him in his criminal case on the same allegations. Thomas and
Naughtons positions as Kilpatricks criminal defense attorneys were antagonistic
to the firms in its representation of its client, the MIDDD, suing Kilpatrick.
Attorneys of the same law firm cannot defend a client on a criminal RICO
indictment, and sue him at the same time on a uniquely parallel civil RICO
complaint. Centra, Inc. v. Estrin, 538 F3d 402, 413 (6 Cir. 2008)(Becauseth
attorneys owe undivided allegiance to their client, they cannot represent both sides
in the same lawsuit.). Parallel criminal and civil cases put Thomas and Naughton,
and the law firm they joined, on opposite sides in two versions of the same
complaint, one criminal and the other civil.
The result is that Kilpatrick was denied his Sixth Amendment rights to
effective assistance of counsel and to be represented by counsel free from serious
conflicts of interest. Wood v. Georgia,450 US 261, 271 (1981)(Where a
constitutional right to counsel exists, our Sixth Amendment cases hold that there is
a correlative right to representation that is free from conflicts of interest.).
Thomas and Naughton could have chosen not to affiliate with the firm as of
counsel attorneys, or they could have withdrawn from their representation of
Kilpatrick in the criminal case. At the very least, they had an obligation to
promptly advise their client of the impact of their new affiliation and bring it to the
-18-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 26
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
27/80
attention of the court in the criminal case. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 US 335, 346
(1980)(Defense counsel have an ethical obligation to avoid conflicting
representations and to advise the court promptly when a conflict of interest arises
during the course of trial.). They did neither. They waited for over five months to
disclose their affiliation with the OReilly firm to the court until prodded a few
weeks before trial.
When they finally told the court of their conflicts before jury selection, the
court had a responsibility to inquire. However, the court neither examined the
details of Thomas and Naughtons relationship with the OReilly firm nor the
allegations of that firms civil RICO complaint naming Kilpatrick as the lead
defendant.Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 US 475, 484 (1978)(We hold that the
failure, in the face of the representations made by counsel weeks before trial and
again before the jury was empaneled, deprived petitioners of the guarantee of
assistance of counsel.). The courts lack of diligence denied Kilpatrick his right
to conflict-free representation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. As discussed
below, Thomas and Naughton had actual conflicts that affected their
representation of Kilpatrick and denied him effective assistance of counsel.
McFarland v. Yukins, 356 F3d 688 (6 Cir. 2004). Each violation requires thatth
Kilpatrick receive a new trial.
-19-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 27
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
28/80
Among the basic duties owed by a criminal defense lawyer to his client are
the duty of loyalty, the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and the overarching
duty to advocate the defendants cause. Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668,
688 (1984). Each is violated when attorneys represent clients with adverse
interests in the same or in parallel litigation within the same law firm. Cannons of
Ethics, the American Bar Association Model Rules, and state rules of professional
conduct, including the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC), codify
these principles. These rules are authoritative because they embody the duties
described in Strickland, and because they all speak with one voice,Nix v.
Whiteside, 106 S Ct 988, 994 (1986) [T]he Restatement (Third) of the Law
Governing Lawyers (Restatement) and the 2007 edition of the American Bar
Associations (ABA) 1983 Model Rules of Professional Conduct (ABA Model
Rules) include the same prohibitions. Centra, Inc.,538 F3d at 409-410.
The MRPC are also authoritative because they have been adopted by the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan as federal rules of
professional conduct. Centra, Inc.,538 F3d at 409; US District Court, Eastern
District of Michigan, Local Rule 83.20(j) (App 22).Id. at 412. They apply equally5
When clients are aligned directly against each other in the same5
litigation, the institutional interest in vigorous development of each clientsposition renders the conflict non-consentable. Centra, Inc., 538 F3d at 413, citing
-20-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 28
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
29/80
to parallel litigation.6
Thomas and Naughton had conflicts because they were associated with the
OReilly firm (MRPC Rule 1.10(a)) (App 8) and were prohibited by MRPC Rule
1.7(a) (App 1) from representing Kilpatrick while OReilly represented the
plaintiff in the Macomb Drain litigation. There was no evidence of any consent by
either party.
As discussed below, their conflicts were not merely theoretical.Mickens v.
Taylor, 535 US 162, 171 (2002). They had the obligation to tell the court about
their association with the OReilly firm, but took no step to do so until prodded by
the court. Although conflicting obligations make it difficult to measure the
precise harm arising from counsels errors,Idat 168, counsel had the sole
responsibility to direct trial preparation, to construct trial strategy, opening
statement, closing argument and to cross-examine witnesses.7
Restatement 122cmt.g(iii) & illus. 8.
Civil and criminal actions arising from the same facts are commonly6
referred to as parallel proceedings. Note: Harvard Law Review, 98 Harv L Rev1023, n.5, 1985; Pollack, Milton,Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings,129
FRD 201 (1989).
Derrick Miller testified as a government witness for over 4 days. He had7
been Kilpatricks chief of staff and testified about conversations with Kilpatrickregarding contracts in this case. (R385, TR 1/7/13, Miller, Pg ID 12032, 12136,12149, 12165; R386, TR 1/8/13, Miller, Pg ID 12185, 12194, 12196, 12205,
-21-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 29
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
30/80
The Macomb Drain litigation was parallel to the RICO conspiracy charge in
the Indictment because it alleged the same widespread scheme and acts by
Kilpatrick charged in the Indictment. (11-13101: R1, Complaint, Pg ID 3; R 240-
1, Proposed Amended Complaint, Pg ID 4053). It alleged the same Kilpatrick
enterprise as did the Indictment. (11-13101: R1, Complaint, Pg ID 11; R240-1,
Proposed Amended Complaint, Pg ID 4086). It asked for damages caused by
alleged massive overcharging for repairs that followed a sewer collapse. A copy of
the Indictment was attached as Exhibit A to the civil Complaint. (11-13101:
Complaint, R1-1, Pg ID 21-109).
A proposed amended civil complaint submitted to the court on February 3,
2012, alleged, based on additional information from the criminal case, that a
larger scheme .... was predicated upon the unlawful use by Kilpatrick of his
authority and influence as Mayor and as the federally appointed Special
Administrator of DWSD... (11-13101: R176-1, Proposed First Amended
Complaint, Pg ID 2543, 2547-51).
A revised amended complaint submitted to the court on September 24, 2012
cited to the indictment numerous times for support of specific allegations; i.e.: as
12210, 12223, 12243) Thomas asked him no questions about those conversationson cross-examination. (R387, TR 1/10/13, Miller, Pg ID 12340-450; R388, TR1/11/13, Miller, Pg ID 12453-591).
-22-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 30
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
31/80
alleged in theFirst Superseding Indictment. (R240-1, 5, 34-38, 40, 48, 50, 53-
56, 60, 64, 74, 75, 79-82, 106, 118-119, 123, 142, 148-149, 159, 172 and 173, Pg
ID 4053-4089). The OReilly firm explained that it was learning more daily from
the criminal trial in which Thomas and Naughton were defending Kilpatrick. (Id,
Pg ID 4782)(Evidence continues to pour in daily from the sworn testimony being
offered in the U.S. v. Kilpatricktrial.).
The OReilly firm continued as counsel for MIDDD at least through the end
of Kilpatricks trial. Although Judge Cleland granted summary judgments to the
defendants in the civil case at the end of 2012, the status of those orders was not
finalized until the Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration was finally denied on
February 11, 2013, (11-13101: R289, Order, Pg ID 5486), the day of the
governments closing argument in the criminal case.
Of counsel attorneys are treated as members of the firm for purposes of
conflict of interest analysis. Lawyers and law firms that engage in of counsel
relationships are cautioned that an of counsel affiliation is treated as one firm for
purposes of the ethics rules, e.g., lawyer disqualification [MRPC 1.10] and
lawyers as witnesses [MRPC 3.7(b)] . Michigan Bar Opinion No. RI-102
(October 1, 1991).(App 13). The opinion expresses the prevailing view on
disqualification. The People ex rel. Dept. Of Corporations v. Speedee Oil, 20 Cal.
-23-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 31
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
32/80
4 1135, 1155 (1999).th
The core characteristic of an of counsel relationship is that it must be close,
regular and personal. Michigan Bar Opinion RI-102 (App 13);see alsoABA
FORMAL OPINION 90-357 (App 16). It cannot be merely a mutual referral
arrangement or one by which the of counsel attorneys act as occasional consultants
to the firm. [F]requent and continuing contact,Id, is essential. (App 16). The
principle rationale for this rule is that it is to prevent false or misleading
communications to the public about the status of attorneys listed on firm
letterheads or on other public documents.Id.([I]t would be misleading to
describe as of counsel a relationship that does not meet this standard.).
Thomas and Naughton made public representations that they were
associated with the OReilly firm. The judge picked up on this because it was the
subject of a newspaper story. (R204, Govt Response re Conflict, Pg ID 1654).
They identified themselves as part of the OReilly firm in their pleadings,
including, for example, in their brief on conflicts of interest. (R203, Memo re
Conflict, Pg ID 1580, 1604). They were using the OReilly firm email address for
their email addresses. ([email protected] [email protected]). (Id, Pg
ID 1604). It can only be presumed that Thomas and Naughton intended their of
counsel relationship to be what the state rules required. There was nothing in the
-24-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 32
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
33/80
record to indicate the contrary.
B. THE COURT DENIED KILPATRICK HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO
CONFLICT-FREE COUNSEL BECAUSE IT FAILED TO THOROUGHLY
INVESTIGATE AND RESOLVE THOMASANDNAUGHTONS CONFLICTSAFTER IT WAS ONNOTICE OF THEM.
The trial court failed to make the kind of inquiry required byHolloway, and
deprived Kilpatrick of his Sixth Amendments guarantee of assistance of
counsel.Holloway,435 US at 484.
The district court began examining their conflicts on August 7, 2012 when
Kilpatrick himself came to Judge Edmunds, with complaints about Thomas prior
representation of Fiore, a listed government witness (R206, TR 8/7/12,
Conference, Pg ID 1675-81, 1689), and with his request for new counsel. (Id, Pg
ID 1693-94). Thomas told the court then he did not believe he was required to
withdraw. (Id, Pg ID 1673). He reversed his position at the hearing seven days
later. (R362, TR 8/14/12, Pg ID 9392-95). He made no mention at the August 7,
2012 meeting that he was of counsel to the OReilly firm. The court asked the
attorneys to submit briefs. (R206, TR 8/7/12, Id, Pg ID 1690).
In an email two days later, on August 9, 2012, the court asked that the
parties fully brief all conflicts and:
address every possible conflict of which counsel ordefendants are aware including, but not limited to,
-25-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 33
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
34/80
Robert Schumake, Dante DeMiro, and also the conflictdiscussed in the Free Press this morning concerning theMacomb Interceptor Drainage District. (08/09/12 Email)
(R204, Govt Response re Conflict, Pg ID 1654).
8
Thomas and Naughton memorandum on conflicts filed on August 13, 2012,
was their first mention of their affiliation with the OReilly firm. (R203, Memo re
Conflict, Pg ID 1580-1643). The government discussed it in less than a page and
simply took the position that it was no problem. (R204, Govt Response re
Conflict, Pg ID 1654). Kilpatricks own 7-page affidavit in support of his
continued request for new counsel was appended to Thomas brief. (R203, Memo
re Conflict, Pg ID 1619-26). He told the court that he and Thomas were no longer
communicating and that Thomas had failed to properly advise him about the
impact on his defense of Thomas prior representation of Fiore. (Id, Pg ID
1620)(I do not know whether my attorney is protecting my interests or his
interests.).
At the courts August 14, 2012, hearing on these issues, Thomas asked the
court to allow him to withdraw. (R362, TR 8/14/12, Conflict Hearing, Pg ID 9395)
(and so I regretfully ask you to allow me to remove myself, because of the
Thomas had also represented Schumake and DeMiro who both had been8
interviewed by the FBI during its investigation. (R203, Memo re Conflict, Pg ID1584, fn. 3).
-26-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 34
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
35/80
conflict, at my clients request). He referred to the Macomb Drain litigation
problem as one that he should have considered. (Id, Pg ID 9393-95). He briefly
mentioned a so-called wall to separate the firms work on the case from him (no
financial interest, no information sharing, separate office locations).
For its part, the government, without a specific attribution, called Thomas
of counsel status a very loose referral affiliation. (Id, Pg ID 9404). Its position
was that the ethics rules of a civil matter are not relevant. (Id, Pg ID 9405).
However, it thought that if there was an imputed conflict arising from Thomas
prior representation, from filing an Answer in the Macomb Drain litigation for
Kilpatrick, any concern was limited to one of shared confidences, and could be
neutralized if the court would appoint independent counsel to handle any of the
defense witnesses in the civil matter. (Id). But no one looked at the wide scope of
allegations in the civil case, similar to the criminal indictment, or what witnesses
might be given to an independent attorney for examination or how that might
impact the proceedings. Other than Kilpatricks statement to the court, there was
no witness testimony and no information considered by the court about Thomas
and Naughtons relationship to the OReilly firm, such as any mutual client
involvement, financial relationships, marketing or other matters which would bear
on the definition of of counsel as close, personal and regular relationship.
-27-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 35
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
36/80
The court denied Kilpatricks request for new counsel and Thomas motion
to withdraw on the record. (Id, Pg ID 9423). Its rationale was that Thomas of
counsel status was extremely attenuated and that there was an ethical wall
erected that has sealed off the exchange of any potential confidential information.
(Id). It said nothing of the adverse relationship of Thomas and Naughton as to the
OReilly firm or the parallel civil case based on the same allegations of
misconduct as in the Indictment.
In the courts written opinion, it also rejected Kilpatricks request for new
counsel because it would cause a delay of as much as six months in the trial
schedule. (R199, Opinion & Order Re Conflict, Pg ID 1560-69).
The court incorrectly focused only on Thomas and Naughtons prior
representation of Kilpatrick in the Macomb Drain litigation. (R199, Opinion, Pg
ID 1563-64) In its view, that representation, complies with Rule 1.10(b) and
rebuts any presumption of shared confidences between them and the OReilly
firm. (Id, Pg ID 1567).It ignored the obvious concerns of adverse interests in
their current representation and their professional affiliation with the OReilly
firm. See Avink v. SMG, 282 Mich App 110, 119 (2009)(holding that a so-called
Chinese wall is only a permissible remedy under MRPC 1.10(b), which applies
to prior, not concurrent representation).
-28-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 36
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
37/80
The courts concern about timing, when it learned of the conflict, similarly
failed to take into account the nature of the conflict and the courts duty to
thoroughly investigate and to resolve it. Neither duty was diminished because the
judge learned of the conflicts about a month before the scheduled trial date. The
factors relied on by the court as militating against Kilpatricks request, that
prospective jurors had been called in to complete questionnaires and that the court
had set aside time for the trial, did nothing to diminish the courts obligation nor
remove the conflict.
This Court has held that notice that requires aHollowayhearing is timely
when the defendant or his counsel raises the issue with the court before or during
trial.McFarland, 356 F3d at 702. InMcFarland, the defendants had been
represented by the same lawyer since their preliminary examination. One of them
asked the court to appoint a separate lawyer on the day of trial.Id.at 694. This
court held that her objection to joint representation was timely.Id.at 703 (Trial
courts may not rigidly insist on objection a certain amount of time before trial
when circumstances have prevented counsel or the defendant from speaking
earlier.); See also,Harris v. Carter, 337 F3d 758, 764 (6 Cir. 2003)(Thus, ath
conflict of interest objection is timely not only when it is raised before trial, but
also when it is raised during the course of the trial.). Once objection to counsels
-29-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 37
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
38/80
conflict is made, the court has a duty to make a sound resolution.Id., citing,
Selsor v. Kaiser, 81 F3d 1492, 1503 (10 Cir. 1996)(unless the trial courts dutyth
upon timely objection encompasses a sound resolution of the conflict problem,
the inquiry mandated byHollowaywould be an empty ritual).
Other circuits have agreed. For example, inAtley v. Ault, 191 F3d 865 (8th
Cir. 1999), a state court denied defense counsels motion to withdraw, made three
days before trial, after he accepted a job as a prosecutor in the office prosecuting
his client. The federal court granted relief, affirmed on appeal, because based on
Holloway, once the conflict motion was made, the trial court was then
constitutionally obligated to either substitute new counsel or take adequate steps to
ascertain the seriousness of the risk presented by the conflict.Idat 871. In Salts
v. Epps,676 F3d 468 (5 Cir. 2012), defense counsels complaint on the day ofth
trial in a two year old fraud case, that he had a conflict of interest because he
represented two co-defendants, was also found to be timely.Idat 478-479.
Finally, the courts remedy, to appoint a fourth attorney to cross-examine
all government witnesses connected to the Macomb Interceptor Drainage District
litigation (R199, Order, Pg ID 1567), neither resolved nor ameliorated counsels
adverse representation conflict. It was the courts intention to limit the role of
fourth counsel to examination of Inland witnesses. (R200, FDO Appointment, Pg
-30-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 38
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
39/80
ID 1576); but, fourth counsel could not resolve Thomas and Naughtons conflicts
that fundamentally affected their duty of loyalty to Kilpatrick concerning all
aspects of the case. The scope of the allegations in the OReilly civil complaint
were as broad as the allegations of contract steering in the RICO count of
Kilpatricks indictment. The civil complaint effectively incorporated references to
all 11 contracts covered by the indictment, not just those associated with Inland.
The conflicts were focused on loyalty to client, not primarily on concerns of
counsels access to confidential information from a prior client. Thomas and
Naughton still had full responsibility, after the courts order, to plan Kilpatricks
defense strategy, to cross examine witnesses like Derrick Miller, who gave
testimony about the Inland contracts and almost all other chapters of the
governments case and to present opening and closing arguments for Kilpatrick.
None of their problems were eliminated by the appointment of fourth counsel.
C. THOMASANDNAUGHTONS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DEPRIVED
KILPATRICK OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
Thomas and Naughtons performance was deficient because they waited
almost six months from the time they associated with the OReilly firm to bring
their adverse conflicts to the attention of the court while the court proceeded
unaware of their status with planning for the criminal trial. They failed to give due
-31-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 39
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
40/80
respect to their ethical obligation to avoid conflicting representations and to
advise the court promptly when a conflict of interest arises during the course of
trial. Cuyler, 446 US at 346. On April 27, 2012, Judge Edmunds set a status
conference for May 15, 2012. (R76, Notice, Pg ID 489). On May 15, 2012, she set
trial for September 6, 2012, and established a schedule for pre-trial motions and
jury selection. (R78, Scheduling Order, Pg ID 491-92). It appears that there was no
mention of their of counsel arrangements at any of these occasions.
Obviously, Thomas and Naughton knew about the civil case long before
they joined the OReilly firm because they filed an Answer on behalf of Kilpatrick
on September 15, 2011. (11-13101: R42, Answer to Complaint, Pg ID 471-483).
Lack of knowledge of representation of the civil plaintiff by the OReilly firm
could not be an excuse for them. On March 21, 2012, days before Thomas and
Naughton joined OReilly, they asked to withdraw from their representation of
Kilpatrick in the civil litigation (but took no action to notify the court in the
criminal case) because they would have conflicts of interest. (11-13101: R198,
Motion to Withdraw, Pg ID 2981)(That pursuant to Michigan Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.16(b) and the American Bar Association Model Rules of
Professional Conduct, 1.7(a)(1), it is mandatory that undersigned counsel
withdraw as attorneys for defendant, Kilpatrick.). (App 1). Judge Cleland granted
-32-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 40
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
41/80
their motion seven days later. (R289, Order, Pg ID 5486-97). Judge Cleland
agreed that they could not defend Kilpatrick against the civil RICO charges
prosecuted by the law firm to which they were to be of counsel after they became
associated with the firm. (11-13101: R199 Order Granting Withdrawal, Pg ID
2984-85) (The court agrees with counsels conclusion that, pursuant to Michigan
Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(a)(1)(App 11), their move to OReilly Rancilio
creates a conflict of interest justifying their mandatory withdrawal as counsel
without further delay.).
When there is an actual conflict that adversely affects defense counsels
performance, the defendants Sixth Amendment rights have been violated,
without a showing that the conflict caused the defendant to lose his or her case,
because there was an actual conflict.McFarland,356 F3d at 705. An actual
conflict, is one that adversely affects counsels performance.Mickens, 535 US at
172 n.5. This test requires a choice by counsel, caused by the conflict of interest.
McFarland, 356 F3d at 706, such as where defense counsel avoids an obvious
strategy to blame another party. United States v. Levy,25 F3d 146, 157-58 (2 Cir.nd
1994).
Thomas and Naughton chose to pursue their personal interests with the
OReilly firm as of counsel attorneys six months before trial instead of providing
-33-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 41
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
42/80
unconflicted representation to Kilpatrick, as was their duty. They inexplicably
omitted any notice of their new affiliation to Judge Edmunds in Kilpatricks
criminal case until August 13, 2012, and then, complied with their obligation only
after the judge specifically asked about the civil case. If they had told Judge
Edmunds on March 21, 2012, of their of counsel status, before the court finally set
briefing, jury selection, and trial dates, the court could have permitted them to
withdraw to pursue their plans to join the OReilly firm as of counsel as they
chose, and appoint conflict-free replacement counsel for Kilpatrick in an orderly
fashion, unconstrained by the time pressures caused by what the court referred to
in its order denying Kilpatrick relief, as the most significant case on the courts
docket. (R199, Opinion & Order re Conflict, Pg ID 1573). There is no explanation
in the record for their 6-month wait. Counsel were well aware of their conflicts for
months. They had an obligation to properly advise their client of the legal
significance of their change in law firm affiliation, just as they had a related
obligation to advise the court, so that it could make appropriate inquiries in a
timely manner. They did neither. Their performance was deficient. They deferred
to their own interests instead of their clients.Mickens, 535 US 172, fn.5.
Kilpatrick should be given a new trial with conflict-free counsel.
-34-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 42
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
43/80
ISSUEII: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ALLOWING LAY OPINION
TESTIMONY BY CASE AGENTS THAT LACKED FOUNDATION
REQUIRED BY FRE701AND THAT EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF
THE RULE.THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS.
Standard of Review:This court reviews district court evidentiary
rulings, including rulings on witness testimony under FRE 701 forabuse of discretion. United States v. Freeman, 730 F3d 590, 595 (6th
Cir. 2013).
Beeckman and Paszkiewicz each testified about their extensive backgrounds
in law enforcement and years spent investigating the allegations in the indictment.
(R336, Beckman, TR 10/05/12 Pg ID 6249-50; R337, Paszkiewcz, TR 10/09/12,
Pg. ID 6451). Together, they testified about two dozen times during the
Governments case to introduce each of the chapters in the prosecutions proofs.
They acted as expert witnesses on city contracting procedures, although the
government never complied with expert notice requirements of FRCrP Rule
16(a)(1)(G). They interpreted text messages and audio recordings based on their
investigations and reviews of evidence not presented to the jury. They offered
opinions that usurped the function of the jury to decide the facts and which only
served to argue the governments theory that Kilpatrick, himself or through others
in the city administration, steered contracts to Ferguson. Their opinions touched
on most aspects of the case and were offered as lay opinions pursuant to FRE 701.
Their opinions far exceeded the pre-trial representations of the government in
-35-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 43
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
44/80
response to the defendants motion to limit such testimony. Through the agents,
the prosecution presented testimony on the roles of Kilpatrick and others that was
based on the agents reviews of the entire investigation, never identified in
specific evidence given to the jury. As such, it included unvetted hearsay and the
agents speculation.
The government continually reverted to objectionable lay opinion testimony
throughout the trial in spite of frequent defense objections. Defendants objected
numerous times during trial to specific questions to the agents from the
prosecutors. As discussed below, this pervasive abuse of case agent testimony by
the government far outside the permissible scope of FRE 701, is not harmless
error. The frequent response from Kilpatrick to text messages initiated by
Ferguson that were read to the jury by the agents, was simply the word Cool, or
similarly short statements. (R337, TR 10/09/12, Paszkiewicz, Pg ID 6488; R 350,
10/24/12, Pg ID 7879, 7889). The agents opinions explaining the governments
version of the messages, telegraphed their arguments that his simple responses
signified joinder in the criminal acts alleged in the indictment.
Bernard Kilpatrick filed a motion before trial to limit lay opinion testimony
by case agents as interpretations of recorded evidence. (R89, Motion to Limit
Interpretation of Recorded Calls, Pg ID 564-79). His motion anticipated that the
-36-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 44
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
45/80
government would use case agents to offer lay opinions interpreting recorded
evidence or text messages that would not be based on their own knowledge or
perceptions. Kilpatrick joined in the motion. (R111, Kilpatricks Notice of
Joinder, Pg ID 871-72).
The government opposition told the court that it intended to offer case agent
lay opinion testimony in installments over the course of the trial, at the
beginning of each distinct chapter, (R129, Govt Response, Pg ID 1000-1019), to
introduce and publish relevant text messages and audio-recordings. The
prosecutors explained that the personal knowledge foundation for agents
testimony would be satisfied by what they learned from review of tens of
thousands of text messages, thousands of wiretap recordings, and hundreds of
records and pieces of information. (Id). They made plain to the court that they
were not relying on first hand observations by the witnesses. They also
represented to the court that what they meant by context and background would be
limited and was only an explanation of abbreviations, shorthand or nicknames
used by the defendants to refer to individuals, companies or business
transactions. (Id). The government assured the court before trial that it intended
only to offer lay opinions that would be limited clarifications of certain
communications. (Id, Pg ID 1009, 1013)(the agents will be testifying about the
-37-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 45
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
46/80
context and meaning of unspecialized information described in text messages and
audio-recordings...). They also offered as a reason their need to tie together the9
far-flung aspects of their complex RICO allegations.
The court denied the defense motion. (R178, Order Regarding Pretrial
Motions, Pg ID 1479-82).
In United States v. Freeman, 730 F3d 590 (6 Cir. 2013), this Court vacatedth
the conviction of Marcus Freeman for violating the murder for hire statute, 18
At a pre-trial hearing on the defense motion, AUSA Chutkow told the9
court that its use of lay opinion testimony would be limited:
Our intention was to do exactly what Your Honor had said as far ashaving agent testimony for particular chapters or episodes in thisindictment. To the extent that they summarize something, it would be
just solely for context purposes. For instance, if we're talking about a
contract that was at issue and they have, they reviewed the contractitself, they would simply say, "This contract was bid and awarded onX date." It wouldn't go in terms of summarizing testimony that isgoing to be heard or that was previously heard or anything like that.We agree with Your Honor that that's what the opening statement, the
closing argument's all about.
As far as the agent interpretation, what we propose is limited, that theywould simply interpret text messages and recordings so that the jury
understands who the abbreviations are, what the contract reference is, whata nickname is. The defendants oftentimes, because they were so familiarwith each other, spoke in a shorthand which the jury could not possibly
understand.
(R365 TR 8/6/12, Motion Hearing, Pg ID 9497).
-38-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 46
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
47/80
USC 1958. It concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a sufficient
foundation for the trial testimony of FBI case agent Peter Lucas as a lay witness
under FRE 701, to interpret and give his personal impressions of recorded
conversations.Idat 596. It also concluded that the error was not harmless.Idat
600.
As discussed inFreeman, a lay witness may give opinion testimony under
FRE 701 when it has the effect of describing something that jurors could not
otherwise experience for themselves by drawing upon the witnesss sensory and
experiential observations that were made as a first-hand witness to a particular
event.Idat 595, citing, United States v. Jayyousi, 657 F3d 1085, 1120 (11 Cir.th
2011).
Rule 701 provides:
If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the formof an opinion is limited to one that is:
(a) rationally based on the witnesss perception;
(b) helpful to clearly understanding the witnesss testimonyor to determining a fact in issue; and
(c) not based on scientific, technical , or other specializedknowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
It is the burden of the proponent to meet each of the rules three
-39-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 47
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
48/80
foundational requirements.Freeman, at 595-96.
The primary source of evidence at trial inFreemanwas 23,000 phone calls
among Freeman and co-defendants. Seventy-seven were admitted as exhibits.
Portions were played for the jury. Lucas, who was qualified as an expert pursuant
to FRE 702 to explain the meaning of specific code words and drug slang,Idat
597, was also asked to testify about his personal impressions of the recorded calls
as a lay witness. In this role, he interpreted the conversations as they were
played.Idat 594. His interpretations ranged from voice and nickname
identifications and broadly illustrate[d] the prosecutions theory of the case for
the jury.Idat 595. For example, he testified that the word situation,supra,
when used in the recordings, referred to a co-defendant who put a hit out for the
victim, who was ultimately killed. Although Lucas listened to all of the calls
during his investigation,Idat597, this Court concluded that he lacked first-hand
knowledge required as foundation for his testimony under Rule 701(a) where he
was neither a participant in any of the calls nor personally observed any relevant
activity. He never specifiedpersonalexperiences that led him to obtain his
information, but instead repeatedly relied on the general knowledge of the FBI and
the investigation as a whole.Id.
This Court inFreeman relied on decisions from five other circuits which
-40-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 48
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
49/80
had described inherent risks that undermine jury verdicts where the prosecution
relies on the agents knowledge of the investigation as a whole,Idat 596,
instead of on personal perceptions required by the rule. Each of these decisions
supported this Courts decision to vacate Freemans conviction. They include:
United States v. Hampton, 718 F3d 978 (DC Cir. 2013)(when a case agent relies
on his knowledge of the entire investigation, the risk that he was testifying
based on hearsay and that the jury would believe that he had knowledge not before
them increases); United States v. Johnson, 617 F3d 286 (4 Cir. 2010)(the trialth
court abused its discretion by allowing a DEA agent to interpret a recorded
conversation based on second-hand information, his review of the wiretap and his
investigation); United States v. Freeman, 498 F3d 893 (9 Cir. 2007); Unitedth
States v. Garcia,413 F3d 201 (2 Cir. 2005); United States v. Grinage, 390 F3dnd
746, 750 (2 Cir. 2004)(Whether labeled as an expert or not, the risk that he wasnd
testifying based on information not before the jury, including hearsay, or at the
least that the jury would think he had knowledge beyond what was before them, is
clear.); and, United States v. Peoples, 250 F3d 630 (8 Cir. 2001)(Agent Nealth
lacked first hand knowledge; her opinions were based on her investigations after
the fact and not on her perceptions of the facts). It also noted that four other
circuits have reached opposite results under different circumstances.Id.The
-41-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 49
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
50/80
Freemancourt found four of those risks.10
First, the Court identified the risk that the agent witness who bases her
opinion or interpretation of recorded conversations (and here, text messages), on
knowledge of the entire investigation relies improperly on information not
before the jury.Hampton,718 F3d at 982. Her information may include hearsay.
Her testimony may effectively smuggle in inadmissible evidence.Freeman, 730
F3d at 596. It also may include speculation.Freeman,498 F3d at 903, 904.
Second, agent lay opinion testimony derived from the agents entire
investigation, as was repeatedly the case at Kilpatricks trial, leaves the jury to
trust that [the agent] had some information information unknown to them that
made him better situated to interpret the words used in the calls than they were.
Freeman, 730 F3d at 597; See:Johnson, 617 F3d at 293. Because only a small
fraction of the 23,000 recorded calls inFreemanwere admitted in evidence,
[w]hen Agent Lucas interpreted those conversations on the basis of his listening
to all of the calls, the jury had no way of verifying his inferences or of
independently assessing the logical steps he had taken.Freeman, 730 F3d at 597.
Third, agents lay opinion testimony based on their review of thousands of
The district court denied Kilpatricks post-trial motion addressing this10
issue. (R463, Opinion & Order, Pg ID 15676-83). The courts opinion pre-datedthis Courts decision inFreemanand relied on cases distinguished inFreeman.
-42-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 50
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
51/80
out of court recordings and documents never presented to the jury, usurps the
function of the jury. InFreeman, the government agent witness effectively
spoon-fed his interpretations of the phone calls and the governments theory of the
case to the jury.Id.By offering conclusions from thousands of calls and evidence
the jury never heard or saw, Agent Lucas, infringed upon the role of the jury to
decide what to infer from the evidence and instead told them what conclusions and
inferences to draw based on his fifteen years of experience.Id.
Fourth, the agent who offers interpretations and specialized knowledge
gained from the entire investigation not presented to the jury, will receive
unmerited credibility in the eyes of the jury. InFreeman, this Court concluded that
the jury may have been unduly persuaded by Agent Lucas position as an FBI
agent.Id. at 598. [T]he agent may receive unmerited credibility when the jury
suspects he has investigative information they do not.Id.at 599;see,Freeman,
498 F3d at 903;Hampton,718 F3d at 981-82.
At Kilpatricks trial, the agents aura of authority in the eyes of the jury was
enhanced by their presentation as de factoexperts on specialized areas of DWSD
contracting and as masters of the voluminous evidence gathered in their
investigation. They testified they relied on their entire investigations for the bases
of their opinions, but the jury was not given any of the out-of-court records to use
-43-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 51
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
52/80
to draw its own conclusions on the same points.
Beeckman testified thirteen times at trial as a Government witness (10/5/12,
10/16/12, 10/19/12, 12/5/12, 12/18/12, 1/4/13, 1/14/13, 1/15/13, 1/22/13, 1/23/13,
1/24/13, 1/29/13, and 1/31/13). He testified that he obtained the text messages
between Kwame Kilpatrick, Bobby Ferguson, Bernard Kilpatrick, Derrick Miller
and others using search warrants from SkyTel, a text message provider. (R336, TR
10/5/12, Beeckman, Pg ID 6251-6254).
Beeckman testified about the Kilpatrick Civic Fund (Id, Pg ID 6260-6307;
R340, TR 10/16/12, Pg ID 6958-7005); Charles Rutherford (R347, TR 10/19/12,
Pg ID 7357-86); Karl Kado (R370, TR 12/5/12, Pg ID 9935-10002); Heilman
Recreation Center (R378, TR 12/18/12, Pg ID 11037-65); Patton Park/ Baby
Creek (R384, TR 1/4/13, Pg ID 12007-25; R389, TR 1/14/13 Pg ID 12737-50;
R390, TR 1/15/13, Pg ID 12754-833); Synagro (R394, TR 1/22/13, Pg ID 13237-
299); Book Cadillac (R395, TR 1/23/13, Pg ID 13455-67; R396, TR 1/24/13, Pg
ID 13471-511; R400, TR 1/29/13, Pg ID 13944-14008; R401, 1/31/13, Pg ID
14019-41). He gave opinion testimony in each of these parts of the trial.
Paszkiewicz testified twelve times (10/9/12; 10/24/12; 10/25/12; 10/26/12;
11/30/12; 12/12/12; 12/13/12;12/14/12; 1/15/13; 1/16/13; 1/28/13; and, 1/31/13).
She testified that she began working on the Kilpatrick investigation in 2009
-44-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 52
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
53/80
(R337, TR 10/9/12, Pg ID 6451-52); and that she was a principal investigator of
allegations of contract fraud and extortion allegations involving members of the
Kilpatrick administration, including employees of DWSD. (R350, TR 10/24/12,
Pg ID 7841-42).
Paszkiewicz testified about: (1) the Downtown Water Main Replacement
Project, CM-2012 (R350, TR 10/24/12, Pg ID 7847-7900; R351, TR 10/25/12, Pg
ID 7905-8061; R352, TR 10/26/12, Pg ID 8069-71); (2) CM 361-Sewer
Emergency Repair Contract (R367, TR 11/30/12, Pg Id 9624-34), DWS 849-
Outfalls Contract, Id, Pg ID 9635-38; (3) DWS 2014; (4) DWS 2015, (5) CMS
864 and 865-East and West Side Water Main Projects, Id, Pg ID 9644-48; (6)
Sinkhole emergency repair contract, 1368, Amendment 4 (R374, TR 12/12/12,
Pg ID 10415-515; R375, TR 12/13/12, Pg ID 10558-688; R376, TR 12/14/12, Pg
ID 10696-99; R390, 1/15/13, Pg ID 12835-43; R391, TR 1/16/13, Pg ID 12853-
71); (7) CM 2015, Book Cadillac Hotel Rehabilitation and summary of Ferguson
contract revenues (R399, TR 1/28/13, Pg ID 13782-826). She also testified that
she participated in a search of the offices of Ferguson Enterprises and testified
about some checks and other documents that were seized. (R401, TR 1/31/13, Pg
ID 14042-68). She gave opinion testimony concerning each of those topics.
The sources of information on which she and Beeckman relied included all
-45-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 53
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
54/80
of the text messages obtained by subpoena. (R337, TR 10/09/12, Paszkiewicz, Pg
ID 6451-54; R351, TR 10/25/12, Beeckman, Pg ID 7983). Paszkiewicz testified
that she and Beeckman went through a total of about 370,000 text messages. They
identified those that appeared to fall in the categories of extortion, bribery,
conspiracy, fraud and racketeering. She testified they narrowed the total number
down to 200 to use as exhibits at trial. She also obtained and reviewed emails,
DWSD documents, bank records and other financial records of contractors. (R350,
TR 10/24/12, Pg ID 7847).
In addition, Beeckman listened to almost all of the calls intercepted on
Bernard Kilpatricks cell phone during the time period of June 2007-April 2008
obtained pursuant to a Title III wire interception and calls recorded during a
period of the Fall 2008 at the Wayne County Jail when Kilpatrick was incarcerated
there. (R340, TR 10/16/12, Pg ID 6958-59).
Paszkiewicz testified that she performed a comprehensive review of
documents relating to the RICO and extortion charges in the indictment. (R337,
TR 10/09/12, Paskiewicz, Pg ID 6452-73; R350, TR 10/24/12, Paskiewicz, Pg ID
7847). During her testimony, she read, explained, and interpreted text messages
and documents for at least nine city or water department contracts and was a de
factoexpert witness about city contract procedures.
-46-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 54
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
55/80
The prosecution repeatedly asked the agents to testify about their opinions
and impressions based on their entire investigation. For example, they gave
opinions about aspects of the Kilpatrick Civic Fund fraud charges, contract
extortion, bribery and racketeering; in other words, all aspects of the case. The
prosecutors questions included the phrase, Based on your investigation of the
text messages in this case ... (R336, TR 10/19/12, Beeckman, Pg ID 7374)(And
the big one, from your review of surrounding text messages, do you know what
that means? (R350, TR 10/24/12, Paskiewicz, Pg ID 7873), or a variation,
became a litany.
A. TESTIMONY ASDEFACTOEXPERTS
The credibility of the agents lay opinions was enhanced in the eyes of the
jury because they were presented as government experts in both technical and
legal aspects of the city contracting processes and in administration of the civic
fund, although they were never qualified as experts. They were presented as
experts in lay witness clothing.Johnson, 617 F3d at 293. This charade freed the
agents from the rigorous cross-examination concerning their specialized
knowledge upon which their opinions were based.Peoples,250 F3d at 241;
United States v. Figueroa-Lopez,125 F3d 1241, 1246 (9 Cir. 1997). The use ofth
the agents in this way, throughout the trial, increased the risk that the jury was
-47-
Case: 13-2500 Document: 50 Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 55
8/11/2019 Kilpatrick Appeal
56/80
improperly swayed by the agents who were presented ... with an aura of expertise
and authority..., rather than rely on its own interpretation of the evidence.
Freeman, 730 F3d at 599. Examples of this practice were numerous. Some are as
follows:
After Beeckman was asked to affirm that he investigated the KCF and its
expenditures, and that the KCF was a p
Top Related