Click to call 602-254-8880 24/7 CLICK HERE FOR FREE CONSULTATION

Banker in Fraud Case requests new Trail based on Rule 32

A high profile tax shelter fraud case has one of its defendents requesting a new trail based on his prior counsel being ineffective. The defendant, David K. Parse, was convicted of criminal fraud charges in 2011 while working for Deutsche Bank Alex.Brown, along with three others: Paul M. Daugerdas, Donna M. Guerin, and Denis M. Field.

This June Judge William Pauley III a federal judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a new trial to Paul M. Daugerdas, Donna M. Guerin, and Denis M. Field based on misconduct by a juror in the original case. He denied the new trial to Mr. Parse based on his lawyers failure to notify the court of their suspicions about the juror. From early on Mr. Parse’s lawyers were suspicious of Juror No. 1 whom they knew lived at a different location than claimed and was also part of another legal case involving a personal injury claim, but they still did not bring this to the judges attention.

In Feburary the juror admitted to lying about her legal and criminal background in order to serve on the panel. She claims that she was unbiased in her deliberations despite the omission. In May of 2011 the jury delivered a guilty verdict after 10 weeks of deliberations which required an alternate juror to take over for one who became ill during the deliberations.

Once the true information about the Juror’s background came to light it was very clear that she was incapable of being an unbiased juror. Based on this the judge ordered a retrial.

Mr. Parse has brought in new counsel to argue that under Rule 32 Post Conviction Relief that his prior counsel was ineffective when they did not alert the court to the inconsistencies in the jurors background statements. The new lawyer, Paul Shechtman, states that based on this fact Mr. Parse should be granted a new trail as well.

In Arizona Post Conviction Relief or Rule 32 is applicable if a Defendant feels that he had ineffective assistance of counsel (this usually occurs with public defender cases); newly discovered evidence has been found which supports his innocence; or there has been a substantive change in the law.

0 Comments

Leave A Reply





Click Here for Free Consultation
With a Fraud Lawyer
Comparison Questions to Ask
When Hiring a Lawyer


Request a Free Consultation

Fill out the form below to recieve a free and confidential intial consultation.

Click here for important legal disclaimer.


Please leave this field empty.

ASSOCIATIONS



10.0 Superb Rating
AVVO Criminal Defense


AV-Highest Rated
Preeminent Lawyers

Martindale-Hubbell


Nation's Top 1% Attorney
National Association of Distinguished Counsel


Super Lawyer
Criminal & DUI Defense


Top 100 Trial Lawyers
(Criminal Defense)

American Trial Lawyers Association


Life Member
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers


Client Satisfaction Award
American Institute of DUI / DWI Attorneys


Top 100 Lawyer
American Society of Legal Advocates


Top 10 DUI/DWI Law Firm
American Institute of DUI / DWI Attorneys


Founding Member
American Association of Premier DUI Lawyers


Member
National College for DUI Defense


Top 10 Attorney
National Academy of Criminal Defense Attorneys


Charter Member
Trial Masters


Sustaining Member
Arizona's Finest Lawyers


Member
DUI Defense Lawyers Association


Lifetime Charter Member
Best Attorneys of America


Fellow Member
American Bar Foundation


Sustaining Member
Arizona Trial Lawyers Association


Member
American Association for Justice


Life Member
Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice


Top Valley Lawyer
North Valley Magazine


Superior DUI Attorney
National Advocacy for DUI Defense


Member Since 1989
American Bar Association

[contact-form-7 id="8118" title="Exit Intent"]