Case 2:12-cr-00001-MLCF-ALC Document 504 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * CRIMINAL ACTION NO.: 12-1 * v. * * SECTION: “F” GERARD G. HOWARD, ET AL. * * * ************************************* MOTION AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM TO ADOPT MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING NOW INTO COURT through undersigned counsel comes defendant, Andre Hankton, who respectfully requests that he be allowed to adopt the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant Telly Hankton and to file a memorandum in support of Mr. Hankton’s request for an evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. Defendants Telly Hankton and Andre Hankton have been joined in the same indictment and have both been charged with capital-eligible offenses. Like Telly Hankton, Andre Hankton has suffered prejudice from pre-indictment disclosures by the government to the media. Accordingly, defendant Andre Hankton respectfully requests that he be permitted to join in defendant Telly Hankton’s motion to dismiss based on improper disclosures to the media. Case 2:12-cr-00001-MLCF-ALC Document 504 Filed 02/14/14 Page 2 of 3 Although there is no need to repeat the arguments made by defendant Telly Hankton, defendant Andre Hankton respectfully requests that he be permitted to file a memorandum in support of Telly Hankton’s motion to dismiss that elaborates on the need for an evidentiary hearing to traverse the government’s justification for leaking information to the media and to determine whether the disclosures in the present case are part of a pattern and practice of leaking non-public information to prejudice federal defendants. WHEREFORE, defendant Andre Hankton respectfully requests that his motion to adopt Telly Hankton’s motion to dismiss be granted and the he be allowed to file a memorandum in support of Telly Hankton’s request for an evidentiary hearing. Respectfully submitted, /s/ William P. Gibbens William P. Gibbens, 27225 SCHONEKAS, EVANS, MCGOEY & MCEACHIN, L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1600 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: (504) 680-6050 (504) 680-6050 [email protected] and Ike Spears, 17811 Diedre Pierce Kelly, 34031 1631 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70117 Attorneys for Andre Hankton 2 Case 2:12-cr-00001-MLCF-ALC Document 504 Filed 02/14/14 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 14th day of February, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record. /s/William P. Gibbens William P. Gibbens 3 Case 2:12-cr-00001-MLCF-ALC Document 504-1 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * CRIMINAL ACTION NO.: 12-1 * v. * SECTION: “F” * GERARD G. HOWARD, ET AL. * * ************************************* ORDER Having considered the foregoing motion by defendant Andre Hankton to adopt the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant Telly Hankton and to file a memorandum in support of Telly Hankton’s request for an evidentiary hearing, IT IS ORDERED that defendant Andre Hankton’s motion to adopt Telly Hankton’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Andre Hankton’s memorandum in support of Telly Hankton’s request for an evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss be filed into the record. New Orleans, Louisiana this _______ day of February, 2014. __________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 2:12-cr-00001-MLCF-ALC Document 504-2 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * CRIMINAL ACTION NO.: 12-1 * v. * * SECTION: “F” GERARD G. HOWARD, ET AL. * * * ************************************* ANDRE HANKTON’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS On February 3, 2014, defendant Telly Hankton filed a motion to dismiss the indictment based on violations of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, Mr. Hankton contends that the government leaked non-public information to the press in order to inflame public opinion against him and affect the impartiality of the grand jury. In response to Mr. Hankton’s allegations, the FBI has admitted disclosing information to the media about the defendants before they were indicted, but the FBI contends that the disclosures were duly authorized and for a legitimate purpose. However, as is discussed below, there is good reason to doubt the FBI’s explanation. Accordingly, defendant Andre Hankton respectfully requests an evidentiary hearing to traverse the FBI’s reasons for meeting with the Case 2:12-cr-00001-MLCF-ALC Document 504-2 Filed 02/14/14 Page 2 of 14 press and to determine whether the FBI’s meeting was part of a pattern and practice of leaking non-public information to prejudice federal defendants. BACKGROUND As the Court is well aware, over the past two years there have been a number of disturbing revelations about the government’s improper use of the media to influence cases. Much of the litigation over the government’s misconduct has focused on anonymous online commentary by government attorneys and federal agents. In United States v. Bowen, Judge Engelhardt exposed inappropriate activities by three government attorneys and an FBI agent, and noted that the court’s findings “may just scratch the surface,” that “pivotal questions abound and remain unanswered,” and that online commentary by law enforcement officials may have been “far more extensive than previously suggested, and even presently known.” 2013 WL 5233325, at *45, 62 (E.D.La. Sept. 17, 2013). Judge Engelhardt is correct that the extent of the online commenting is still unknown, and Magistrate Judge Wilkinson has recently authorized subpoenas for additional screen names and questioned whether the government’s online activity constitutes a “pattern, policy or practice of pre-indictment prosecutorial misconduct” that violates defendants’ due process rights. United States v. Jackson, 2013 WL 6388568, at *4 (E.D.La. Dec. 6, 2013). Another grave concern, even more serious than the anonymous commentary, has been exposed in the present case: media leaks by government agents to advance the government’s agenda and prejudice defendants. Based on numerous factors discussed below, it appears that the leak exposed by Telly Hankton is a single episode in a “pattern, policy or practice” of leaking non-public information to the press. Accordingly, defendant Andre Hankton respectfully 2 Case 2:12-cr-00001-MLCF-ALC Document 504-2 Filed 02/14/14 Page 3 of 14 requests an evidentiary hearing to call witnesses and subpoena documents in support of Telly Hankton’s motion to dismiss based on media leaks. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING It cannot be disputed that there has been a pattern of disclosure of confidential information in federal criminal cases. As is outlined in Exhibit “A,” the local media have regularly reported details of sealed bills of information and indictments; identified uncharged individuals referred to as “Public Official A,” “Businessman A,” “Mr. A,” etc., in charging documents and factual bases; disclosed specific items seized by the government in raids; correctly predicted the dates of indictments; and discussed the identities of federal targets, theories of the government’s investigation, and the activities of the grand jury. In several prosecutions over the years, defendants have accused the government of making these disclosures. The government routinely denied responsibility, often in a self- serving affidavit by former U.S. Attorney Jim Letten. See Ex. “B.” Significantly, most of these denials occurred almost immediately after the leak allegations were made, before there was an opportunity for the government to undertake any meaningful investigation. Id. These repeated, self-serving denials should be questioned in the wake of the resignations of Mr. Letten and several of his top deputies in November and December 2012.1 In a welcome change, the new U.S. Attorney has admitted that FBI agents were in fact the undisclosed sources for a pre-indictment article about Andre Hankton and his co-defendants. However, the FBI’s justification for these disclosures rings hollow. Although the FBI now claims the meeting was authorized and legitimate, the news article resulting from that meeting 1 One of several reasons to question these representations is former First AUSA Jan Mann’s testimony that when Mr. Letten told the court in Bowen that AUSA Salvador Perricone was the only online commenter in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mr. Letten knew full well that Ms. Mann was also commenting online. United States v. Bowen, 2013 WL 5233325, *45-49 (E.D.La. Sept. 17, 2013). 3 Case 2:12-cr-00001-MLCF-ALC Document 504-2 Filed 02/14/14 Page 4 of 14 was no different from many others over the years: a series of prejudicial comments by undisclosed “sources with knowledge of the probe.” And there are good reasons to be skeptical of the FBI’s explanation. First, the leaks to the press in Howard are nearly identical to leaks in at least nineteen other cases investigated by the FBI over the past several years. Second, the FBI has admitted to exploiting media coverage to advance its investigations; and former AUSA Salvador Perricone has testified under oath that “he suspected ‘multiple leakers’ of sensitive DOJ information, including grand jury information, sourced at the FBI.” United States v. Bowen, 2013 WL 5233325, at *52 (E.D.La. Sept. 17, 2013). Finally, the government has resisted any independent investigation into this pattern of leaks to the media. A. The FBI’s admitted leaks in Howard are strikingly similar to numerous other leaks in previous FBI cases.