Skip to main content

JURY FINDS ATTORNEYS GUILTY OF WITNESS TAMPERING

Two Defendants Face Up to Life in Prison

Benton J. Campbell, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, announced that following a four-week trial a federal jury in Brooklyn today returned verdicts in which they found criminal defense attorneys Robert Simels and Arienne Irving guilty of conspiracy to obstruct justice through witness tampering, attempted witness tampering, and importation and possession of illegal eavesdropping equipment. Simels was also convicted of bribing a witness. When sentenced by United States District Judge John Gleeson, both defendants will face a maximum sentence of life in prison.

The evidence at trial established that Simels, and his associate, Irving, schemed to obstruct justice and tamper with witnesses in connection with the representation of drug king pin Shaheed Khan in federal court in Brooklyn. The defendants sought to use their client’s Guyana-based criminal organization in an effort to identify, locate, and tamper with individuals they believed would be government witnesses at Khan’s criminal trial. To this end, the defendants met with a cooperating witness (“CW”) -- a former member of Khan’s criminal organization -- and discussed with him a range of options, including bribing the witnesses and acts of violence against them and their family members to prevent the witnesses from testifying against Khan. When the defendants were arrested at their Manhattan offices in September 2008, law enforcement found electronic equipment designed to secretly intercept and record cellular telephone calls. The equipment was imported by the defendants from Guyana where it had been used by Khan to target individuals, some of whom were later murdered.

“The defendants’ crimes were an affront to the criminal justice system,” stated United States Attorney Campbell. “This case demonstrates that those who seek to use their license to practice law as license to commit crimes will be brought to justice.” Mr. Campbell expressed his grateful appreciation to the Drug Enforcement Administration for their assistance during the investigation and trial.

The government’s case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Steven L. D’Alessandro, Daniel D. Brownell, and Morris J. Fodeman.

The Defendants:


Name: ROBERT SIMELS
Age: 62

Name: ARIENNE IRVING
Age: 31
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more