-cites many killings by enforcers
The prosecution in the Shaheed Roger Khan drug trial yesterday released a memorandum of law submitted in support of its motion for a pretrial ruling to admit evidence regarding uncharged criminal activity by Khan.
According to the memorandum, Khan, indicted for trafficking of cocaine in the US, not only ordered the murder of Devendra Persaud, but also that of boxing coach Donald Allison.
The document, which was filed in the New York Eastern District Court on Monday, seeks to have the court admit at trial evidence of Khan’s retaliation against Persaud, who was once part of his organisation, which included threats to Persaud and his family, seizing Persaud’s car, and ultimately, ordering Persaud’s murder; as well as the murder of Allison.
According to the document, though this conduct was not charged in the indictment, it constituted direct proof of the accused’s continuing criminal enterprise and narcotics conspiracy and the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b).
Further, the prosecution gave notice that it would seek to offer evidence of Khan’s criminal conduct in Vermont and subsequent bail jumping if necessary to rebut defences advanced by Khan, including lack of knowledge of drug trafficking, pursuant to Rule 404(b).
The prosecution said it would establish at trial that Khan was the leader of a violent drug trafficking organisation (the “Khan Organisation”) that was based in George-town, Guyana, from at least 2001 until his arrest in June 2006.
“Khan and his co-conspirators obtained large quantities of cocaine, and then imported the cocaine into the Eastern District of New York, among other places, where it was further distributed,” the memorandum said. “Khan was ultimately able to control the cocaine industry in Guyana, in large part because he was backed by a para-military squad that would murder, threaten, and intimidate others at Khan’s direction. While Khan’s enforcers killed many people as part of a battle among political factions in Guyana, they also committed violent acts and murders on Khan’s orders that were directly in furtherance of Khan’s drug trafficking conspiracy.”
With regard to Allison’s murder, the prosecution said it expected to prove at trial, primarily through the testimony of cooperating witnesses and related corroborating information, that Allison, who lived in Guyana, and others, imported cocaine into the United States that was obtained from the Khan Organisation.
Some of this cocaine was seized in the US, the document said and Khan suspected that Allison and his co-conspirators had stolen it. Khan then tried to recruit Allison, but Allison refused and on at least one occasion insulted Khan in a public place, the memorandum said and Khan threatened that he would kill Allison. Subsequently, Allison was shot and killed.
Khan later made statements during which he took credit for the murder of Allison, the document contended.
As regard Persaud, the US attorney’s document said he had lived in Queens, New York and was a cocaine distributor for the Khan Organisation. It said Persaud received cocaine from the Khan Organisation, distributed it to others, and then sent money back to the organisation in Guyana.
Persaud was arrested in June 2003 at John F. Kennedy airport, and was charged with bulk cash smuggling and conspiring to import cocaine into the United States. Thereafter, Persaud was released on bond. He ultimately cooperated with US law enforcement, including participating in numerous proffers and agreeing to have his cellular telephone calls recorded, among other things.
According to the document, in December 2003, Persaud’s relative who was in Guyana, called Persaud in Queens and informed him that “Shortie,” “Shortie’s” bodyguards, and “Ledge,” had gone into her store and threatened and pointed a gun at her while she held a child. She informed Persaud that they demanded to know his case number. Shortly thereafter, Persaud jumped bond and fled back to Guyana, the document said.
The prosecution said it would establish at trial that one nickname for Khan was “Shortman.”
Individuals in the cocaine industry in Guyana, including Khan, the document said, suspected that Persaud was cooperating with US law enforcement. Additionally, Persaud owed Khan a drug debt. In order to collect on the debt, Khan’s co-conspirators arrived at Persaud’s store in Guyana, and took his car from him and Khan put a “hit” out on Persaud.
In October 2004, the memorandum said, Khan was informed by a member of his organisation that Persaud was at the Palm Court Restaurant and Bar and Khan stated that Persaud should be killed that night. Persaud was shot to death at the Palm Court restaurant.
The prosecution argued that the threats to Persaud and his family, the taking of Persaud’s car, the murder of Persaud, and the murder of Allison, while uncharged, were admissible as direct evidence of the charged continuing criminal enterprise and narcotics conspiracy. It quoted sections of US law under which this was admissible and cited previous cases where such evidence had been admitted.
It said that Khan’s alleged ordering of the murders was proof of his leadership role in the conspiracy. The government has alleged in Count One of the superseding indictment that Khan was the principal administrator of a continuing criminal enterprise.
It noted that in deciding whether to admit evidence of uncharged crimes under Rule 404(b), the Court must: (1) determine whether admission of the evidence is being sought for a proper purpose; (2) determine whether the evidence is relevant to an issue in the case; (3) determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the prejudicial impact; and (4) give a limiting instruction if one is requested by the defence.
