Richard Maike, Doyce Barnes, and Faraday Hosseinipour are all trying to get out of being found guilty.

After being found guilty by a jury in September, the three have asked to be released and be tried again.

The motions for acquittal and a new trial were filed by Maike (on the right) on September 21. On November 4, the DOJ sent their answer.

Some of the arguments for an acquittal and a new trial are:

testimony from several DOJ expert witnesses about “the legal definition of a pyramid scheme” and being “unqualified to offer an opinion about pyramid schemes”; testimony from a retired FBI Special Agent who worked on the case from beginning to end but will retire in December 2021; testimony from an IRS Revenue Agent (Maike says an expert witness should have testified on tax fraud instead) (despite the court overruling objections raised during trial)
In most cases, “the evidence presented at trial was not enough to convict the defendants.”
The jury instructions about Maike keeping information from his accountants are not on the “jury instruction on tax evasion” list. This is related to Maike’s “good faith” argument, which was basically an attempt to put the blame on his accountants. There were also problems with the statutes of limitations on the alleged fraudulent acts at the time. It should be noted that the DOJ called “over 30 witnesses” during the Infinity2Global trial. Even though it wasn’t made clear above, the DOJ has pushed back on all of the points made above.

I haven’t talked about them in detail because most of the arguments are about legal procedures, which aren’t very interesting.

In addition to the above problems, Faraday Hosseinipour has thrown her lawyers under the bus.

This is from the response filing from the DOJ;

Hosseinipour says that his trial lawyer didn’t help him enough when he was trying to reach a plea deal.

Here, the US met with Hosseinipour in person for four hours to talk about “the pending charges” and “possible ways forward.”

During the meeting, the US “went into great detail about the terms of the [proposed] plea agreement and how things would go if Hosseinipour decided to accept it.”

Hosseinipour turned down the deal because the US “wouldn’t give me anything less than a felony,” and he had already said he didn’t want to plead guilty to a felony.

There is no evidence in the record that a plea offer was not made or that plea negotiations were not held.

Because of what trial counsel did, Hosseinipour went to trial instead of taking a plea.

Instead, the record shows that Hosseinipour and the United States talked about the plea offer for four hours, and that Hosseinipour decided not to take it.

Like any other defendant who was found guilty at trial, Hosseinipour now wishes she had pleaded guilty, but that is not enough to get a new trial.

The Strickland Standard is a long-standing Supreme Court ruling that “set the standard for determining when a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel’s inadequate performance.”

The details don’t have anything to do with this article, but if you want to know more, you can look up Strickland v. Washington on Wikipedia.

Hosseinipour also says that his trial lawyer didn’t do a good job because he “failed to present certain arguments,” “was unable to make the right objections,” and “left a key witness, Anzalone, unimpeached.”

Hosseinipour says that trial counsel made a long list of mistakes, including failing to “conduct discovery, object to the admission of evidence, interview witnesses, review necessary documents, file motions with actual merit, produce exhibits, impeach biased witnesses, properly examine witnesses, focus on the trial, return Hosseinipour’s calls and emails, respect the attorney-client privilege, and present or even look into exculpatory evidence.”

Given that Hosseinipour’s claims aren’t very clear and that her motion doesn’t even mention the trial record once, it’s hard to use the Strickland test here.

Also, when Hosseinipour does make specific complaints, the trial record shows that they are not true.

Hosseinipour wants an evidentiary hearing, even though she hasn’t given any specific evidence or arguments to back up her claim of ineffective help.

The Court should say no to this request because Hosseinipour’s motion does not show that her lawyer did not help her well.

Due to all the delays leading up to the Infinity2Global trial and the large amount of evidence that was presented, Maike Barnes’ and Hosseinpour’s motions look like they were made out of desperation.

I don’t think the court will say anything, but they haven’t decided on the motions yet.

If everything goes as planned, Maike, Barnes, and Hosseinipour will get their sentences on December 12. We’ll keep you posted.

Change on December 13, 2022 – On December 7, Maike, Barnes, and Hosseinpour’s request for an acquittal and a new trial was turned down.

At the time this update was made, I didn’t know for sure what the sentences were. In the comments below (#4), I’ve given an update based on what the case dockets say.

Change on December 16, 2022 – Richard Maike has been given a 10-year prison sentence.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *