US continuing to oppose bail for Roger Khan
Stabroek News
January 5, 2007
The US government is continuing to oppose a bail application for Roger Khan, saying the drug-indicted Guyanese businessman remains a flight risk.
In her latest submissions to the Eastern District Court of New York, US Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf maintains that evidence of Khan's guilt is strong and that his history in the United States suggests that he could easily flee to Guyana. In light of these concerns, Khan's lawyers have submitted that they can obtain a statement from the Guyana Government that it would bar Khan from returning to the country. "If he did they will send him back to the US," attorney Robert Simels explained in a submission, dated January 3, 2007. Simels also says Khan's family would be willing to post property valued at US2M to pay for electronic monitoring and private security to ensure his presence.
A bail hearing was scheduled to continue yesterday, but it was postponed because the judge was ill. It has now been rescheduled for January 16.
Khan is charged with conspiring to import cocaine into the US over a five year period from January 2001 to March 2006. The US alleges that he is the leader of a cocaine trafficking organisation based in Georgetown. It also asserts that he was able to import huge amounts of cocaine into Guyana, and then oversee its exportation to the US and elsewhere. The US government charges that a significant amount of the cocaine distributed by Khan went to the Eastern District of New York for further distribution. As an example, it is citing a Guyanese drug trafficking organisation based in Queens, New York, which it says was supplied by Khan. The Queens organisation is said to have distributed hundreds of kilos of cocaine in a two-month period during the spring of 2003.
Following a request by Khan's lawyers for US District Court Judge Dora L. Irizarry to review the decision to exclude testimony about Khan's arrest, the US government is maintaining that there is no need to revisit the issue and has asked the court to continue the permanent order of detention in the case. Khan's lawyers have asked the court to direct the government to allow US Embassy No.2 Michael Thomas and DEA Agent Gary Tuggle to testify. In denying the request to subpoena Thomas and Tuggle, Judge Irizarry ruled that the issue of how Khan was transported to the US had no relevance to the question of bail.
Mauskopf, in a December 30 submission, argued that the defence provided no reason for the court to reverse its order and as a result she urged that it abide by its previous decision. In fact, she pointed out, neither Thomas' or Tuggle's testimony is being sought to for any purpose that is relevant to bail - that is, whether Khan is a flight risk or a threat to the community.
According to Mauskopf, Khan resided in the US and committed crimes in both Maryland and Vermont. How-ever, on January 6, 1992 he was convicted in Montgo-mery County of breaking and entering and theft. While he was on probation for that offence, he was arrested in Burlington, Vermont for receiving and possessing three firearms while being a convicted felon. He was subsequently indicted and was released on bail in November 1993. He promised to obey all conditions of his release but fled to Guyana in 1994 in order to avoid prosecution and as a result there is an outstanding warrant for his violating the conditions of his partial release and an outstanding warrant in Rockville, Maryland for violating the conditions of his probation. It is in this context that Mauskopf described Khan as a flight risk. She said there is no condition or combination of conditions or release sufficient to ensure his return to court. Additionally, she said because Khan is charged with importing over 5 kilos of cocaine into the US, there is a presumption that such is the case. "That presumption cannot be rebutted here, especially in light of the personal history of the defendant," Mauskopf explained. "He already jumped bail once, violating conditions set by another US District Court… He could simply flee to Guyana again and live beyond the reach of the US justice system as he did before." She noted that in Guyana he was a dominant presence and travelled with multiple bodyguards and was heavily armed himself.
The attorney suggested that flight seems particularly possible in this instance, since Khan's filings made it clear that he does not recognise the authority of the law enforcement officers who arrested him and that he believes he is in custody unlawfully. Khan has described his apprehension as a kidnapping and has filed lawsuits against US agents and other officials in Trinidad.
Mauskopf maintained the evidence of Khan's guilt is extremely strong. She said that through the testimony of cooperating witnesses who participated in the crime, the government would prove that Khan imported cocaine into the US. She also mentioned evidence that would corroborate the testimony of the cooperating witnesses, documentation of cocaine importations and distributions and law enforcement seizures of cocaine.
Mauskopf also noted that Khan had no legal status in the US. As a result, she said he would simply be released to the custody of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents if he were released from the custody of US marshals.
`Woefully insufficient'
However, in a reply dated January 3, Khan's lawyer Robert Simels decried the government's claims as "woefully insufficient" since it only stated in broad terms that Khan was involved in drug trafficking. He made specific reference to the 2003 cocaine seizure and noted that the case did not produce any evidence of Khan's involvement, and in fact proved the contrary.
He said too that the strength of the government's case was weakened by the fact that the documents seized from Khan's office and home in Guyana were obtained illegally. As a result, he requested that the court conduct an inquiry into the circumstances of the seizure before giving any weight of evidence to the government's claim.
Simels maintained that the reason for his application to revisit the testimony of Thomas and Tuggle was as a result of representations made by the US government, to the effect that Khan was facing charges in Guyana and fled to Suriname where he was arrested on a narcotics charge. He said Khan was not a fugitive from Guyana and his alleged involvement in a drug case in Suriname was dismissed within two weeks, when it was determined he had no involvement. He noted also that the three others with whom Khan was arrested have also been released without charges.
Simels added that Khan's case histories in Vermont and Maryland were non-issues that have little to do with the court's role in assessing release. He made it clear that the defence was not saying the court could not consider those matters, but he emphasised that it is required to make an independent finding with respect to the instant charges and not other jurisdictions. As regards Khan's legal status, he said part of the discovery provided a copy of a Deportation Order from Trinidad. As a result, he said Khan is not without status. Moreover, he contended that the order demonstrates a violation of due process by the US in bringing Khan without a hearing having been conducted in Trinidad first. Further, he said any issue as to detention by ICE should be decided by a court empowered under Homeland Security and INS, not the District Court.
Simels noted that Khan made no effort to avoid facing the pending charges. Added to that, he said that in Guyana Khan operated several successful legitimate businesses and this was well known to the US government for the past ten years. In fact, he drew attention to the redacted report of the March 6, 2006 meeting between Khan and officials from the US Embassy in Guyana. He said it showed that Khan willingly attempted to assist the DEA with respect to corruption in Guyana and this is a strong indication that he is not a flight risk.
Simels also noted that the court is required to consider the length of the proceedings. He pointed out that the government has asked the court to declare the matter a complex case and a trial date is not foreseeable, while Khan has been incarcerated since June 29, 2006.