Richard Chichakli has filed a detailed list of errors that he asserts were committed at his trial, in a 37-page pleading that appears to be supplemental to his Rule 33 Motion for a New Trial, which is still pending, together with other post-trial motions that we have covered in earlier articles on this blog.
To briefly summarize the defendant's position:
(1) There was ineffective assistance of counsel. One should remember, however, that Chichakli chose to defend himself, and he only has Stand-by counsel.
(2)The Court improperly admitted the lay opinion of the bob-expert witness, Al Monica.
(3) There was jury misconduct.
(4) The Court improperly used Federal Evidence Rule 404(b) evidence, which cover prior criminal conduct, as a basis for the conviction.
(5) The Court erred in charging the jury.
(6) The Court failed to rule on defendant's motion concerning "secret evidence," and improperly precluded admission of relevant evidence helpful to the defendant.
(7) The Government failed to produce the search warrant authorizing the search of defendant's property in May 2005, and failed to produce the evidence seized from the search in Discovery.
(8) Notwithstanding missing witnesses, defendant's cross-examination of government witness, concerning an adverse finding regarding credibility, was improperly denied.
(9) The Court failed to issue a jury charge on a missing witness.
(10) The Court's jury instruction on the indictment was prejudicial to the defendant.
(11) The Court improperly charged the jury regarding the evidence.
(12) The defendant was not afforded a fair trial, and was prevented from preparing a meaningful defense.
It has, of course, occurred to me that the presentation of these issues serves to preserve them for the purposes of any appeal from the defendant's conviction, should the Court deny his motion for a New Trial, as such motions are rarely granted in Federal Court.