The record in their case also establishes that neither attorney challenged several police seizures or money confiscated from October 1996, October 1997, September 1999, October 2001, January 2001, March 16, 2004, or 2005 traffic stops. What happened to the collections? None of the attorneys deposed the alleged drivers, the police officers or other witnesses involved in these alleged traffic stops to question their role in the stops, their communications with the alleged drivers of vehicles or whether the dollar amounts in question are accurate collections.
The indictment fails to establish the Johnson brothers individually or in concert engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise. The attorneys failed to examine the elements of continuing criminal enterprise to determine whether the government could satisfy each element. For example, the indictment clearly states that alleged criminal activity transpired since high school in 1990 through 2005 however, it fails to demonstrate any evidence of “continuing” criminal activity from 1990 to 1994 and alleges isolated incidents that include one from 1996, 1997, 1999 and two in 2001 with no evidence of continuing illegal activities. …show more content…
Salmon appeared in court for Cali on October 2005 and initially represented him. After remitting five hundred thousand ($500,000.00) dollars in cash for bond and David’s lawyer also received one million dollars toward bond. Neither D-Money nor Cali received bond. Their lawyers did not refund their money. In fact, Mr. Salmon ceased communications with Cali and literally abandoned the case. Mr. Salmon had a conflict of interest because he continued to represent the interest of other defendants, cooperating and non-cooperating, apparently unbeknownst to Cali. Oddly, he filed motions in those cases, but over the course of the year of representation of Cali, no motions were filed in his case: (Franks, Dismissal of Indictment, Challenges to CCE, Bond after remittance of bond payments,
The indictment fails to establish the Johnson brothers individually or in concert engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise. The attorneys failed to examine the elements of continuing criminal enterprise to determine whether the government could satisfy each element. For example, the indictment clearly states that alleged criminal activity transpired since high school in 1990 through 2005 however, it fails to demonstrate any evidence of “continuing” criminal activity from 1990 to 1994 and alleges isolated incidents that include one from 1996, 1997, 1999 and two in 2001 with no evidence of continuing illegal activities. …show more content…
Salmon appeared in court for Cali on October 2005 and initially represented him. After remitting five hundred thousand ($500,000.00) dollars in cash for bond and David’s lawyer also received one million dollars toward bond. Neither D-Money nor Cali received bond. Their lawyers did not refund their money. In fact, Mr. Salmon ceased communications with Cali and literally abandoned the case. Mr. Salmon had a conflict of interest because he continued to represent the interest of other defendants, cooperating and non-cooperating, apparently unbeknownst to Cali. Oddly, he filed motions in those cases, but over the course of the year of representation of Cali, no motions were filed in his case: (Franks, Dismissal of Indictment, Challenges to CCE, Bond after remittance of bond payments,