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

Sniffing ‘Bad Odor,’ Lindsey Defendants Ask For Dismissal

The name alone says a lot: Motion to Dismiss the Indictment With Prejudice Due to Repeated and Intentional Government Misconduct.

In a filing this week, the Lindsey defendants and Steve Lee argued for dismissal of the case against them.

They were each convicted in May of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and five substantive FCPA offenses.

Their argument starts this way:

On June 27, 2011 counsel appeared on the previously filed Motion to Dismiss the Indictment With Prejudice Due to Repeated and Intentional Government Misconduct (“Motion to Dismiss” or “Motion”). Remarkably, as set forth below, that day the prosecutors revealed that they had not complied with the Jencks Act and orders of this Court, and had not produced the complete grand jury testimony of Special Agent Susan Guernsey to the defendants.

This continuing nondisclosure clearly troubled the Court . . . . The Court stated: “I don’t know if there was a stench that developed in this case, but there was a bad odor at times. . . .”

After listing many things it found troubling, the Court asked the parties to address the prosecutorial misconduct issue in more detail in supplemental pleadings, and specifically to address whether “the whole being greater than the sum of its parts justifies throwing out this conviction, because a lot of the parts that led up to this conviction are extremely troublesome.”

Without rearguing each motion, repeating each interchange, or detailing the testimony of each court day, and cognizant of the Court’s dislike of sensationalized pleadings and oratory, the following is submitted.

(Citations omitted)

Jan Handzlik, the lawyer for Lindsey Manufacturing and its CEO Keith Lindsey, told us: “Individually, several of these transgressions would justify dismissal. Considered on a cumulative basis, however, the unfairly prejudicial impact of this conduct was extraordinarily damaging.”

The defendants’ motion to the dismiss will be heard by Judge A. Howard Matz on September 8 in Los Angeles.

Download part 1 of the defendants’ supplement brief filed July 25, 2011 here.

Download part 2 here.


Judge A. Howard Matz is presiding over the Los Angeles 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.

Jan L. Handzlik of Greenberg Traurig is defending Lindsey Manufacturing and Dr. Keith Lindsey. Steve K. Lee is represented by Janet Levine of Crowell & Moring.

Share this post


Comments are closed for this article!