Skip to content


Harry Cassin
Publisher and Editor

Andy Spalding
Senior Editor

Jessica Tillipman
Senior Editor

Bill Steinman
Senior Editor

Richard L. Cassin
Editor at Large

Elizabeth K. Spahn
Editor Emeritus

Cody Worthington
Contributing Editor

Julie DiMauro
Contributing Editor

Thomas Fox
Contributing Editor

Marc Alain Bohn
Contributing Editor

Bill Waite
Contributing Editor

Russell A. Stamets
Contributing Editor

Richard Bistrong
Contributing Editor

Eric Carlson
Contributing Editor

Will Lindsey And Lee Have A Merry Christmas?

A hearing on the Lindsey-Lee defendants’ motion to dismiss the indictment against them is scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday, November 29) at 10 am in LA.

The defendants will argue to Judge A. Howard Matz that the DOJ’s prosecution was tainted by ‘alleged repeated and intentional government misconduct.’

Lindsey Manufacturing Company, CEO Keith E Lindsey, and CFO Steve K Lee were each convicted by a federal jury in May of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and five substantive FCPA offenses.

In June, Judge Matz said: ‘I don’t know if there was a stench that developed in this case, but there was a bad odor at times. . . .’

The defendants said in their reply brief:

[T]he prosecution engaged in a course of misconduct that was both flagrant and prejudicial. Among other things, the prosecutors inserted false factual statements into their agent’s search warrant affidavit; failed to bring those statements to the agent’s attention; repeatedly used affidavits containing these falsehoods for searches and seizures; changed the contents of proposed search warrant authorizations from language that comported with the Fourth Amendment to language that allowed the case agents to conduct general searches of electronically stored information; allowed false testimony to be presented to the grand jury; shielded that false testimony and other falsehoods and failures in the investigation from disclosure to the grand jury, the Court and the Lindsey-Lee Defendants; failed to comply with disclosure orders and with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); failed to comply with this Court’s limiting instructions; and improperly and prejudicially argued willful blindness to the jury.

On the White Collar Crime Prof Blog, Solomon Wisenberg said: ‘A potential bad sign for the government, as if it needed another one, is the court’s November 16th order requiring the U.S. Attorney’s Office to file certain government and court exhibits in the record by November 18. The court had already publicly criticized the government for its use and handling of some or all of these exhibits.’

Judge A. Howard Matz is presiding over the case — U.S. v. Noriega et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Western Division – Los Angeles), Case #: 2:10-cr-01031-AHM-4.

Download a copy of the defendants’ motion and reply brief here.

Share this post


Comments are closed for this article!