Raven 23 defense team files motion for new trial

Conflicting & False Testimony

www.freeraven23.com 

www.freeraven23.com 

In this case, the government had every reason to know that the testimony of Sarhan Dheyab Abdul Monem, an Iraqi police officer present during the incident, was false, but nonetheless presented Mr. Monem as a key witness—the second witness at trial—and shaped its theory of the case on his testimony (1). As a direct result of that presentation, the jury was misled into believing that the Defendants’ actions on September 16, 2007 were unjustified from the very start. This conclusion led inexorably to the Defendants’ convictions for voluntary and attempted voluntary manslaughter, as opposed to acquittals on those charges or convictions on the lesser- included offenses of involuntary manslaughter (to which the mandatory-minimum firearm charge does not apply). 

Read the full text of the motion (click)

3 Big Reasons Why Raven 23 Should Receive a New Trial

  1. Where The Government Should Have Known Its Witness’s Testimony Was False, The Conviction Must Be Set Aside If There Is Any Reasonable Likelihood That The False Testimony Could Have Affected The Judgment Of The Jury 
     
  2. If The Government Could Not Have Known The Testimony Was False, A New Trial Is Required If The New Evidence Would Probably Lead To An Acquittal On Some Charges 
     
  3. Mr. Monem’s Trial Testimony Was Perjured    
    1. The Government Should Have Known Mr. Monem’s Testimony Was False
    2. Mr. Monem’s Testimony Was Essential To The Government’s Theory Of The Case 
    3. Mr. Monem’s Statement Supports Defendants’ Theory Of The Case    
    4. Mr. Monem’s Statement Undermines Confidence In The Verdict 

Read the full text of the motion (click)