Previous Story
Rahman’s request for new trial denied
The NMI District Court Designated Judge John Coughenour denied the motion for a new trial requested by Muksedur Rahman.
A jury convicted Rahman and three others for mail fraud, fraud in foreign labor and contracting, and misuse of visas and permits on Oct. 18, 2017.
Through his defense council Robert Torres, Rahman filed a motion for a new trial or judgment of acquittal back in Oct. 30 because he claims that the government lacked the sufficient evidence to support his conviction and because of the alleged errors during closing arguments. Unfortunately for him, the court denied the motion on Dec. 11, 2017.
Evidence used to convict Rahman included letters, testimonies of witnesses, and various documents such as bank records.
Rahman claims that the evidence used against him does not show fraudulent intent but the government presented recordings between Rahman and a victim that contradicts this claim. This was lawfully sufficient evidence to convict Rahman.
Rahman also claimed that there is no evidence that he fraudulently solicited or recruited individuals outside of the United States, but the jurors needed only to prove he caused fraudulent recruitment and a testimony from Rahman’s co-defendant Zeaur Rahman Dalu proved that Rahman was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of being the cause of fraudulent recruitment.
Rahman also claims that during closing, the government gave two improper statements in regards to prosecutor’s commentary about the defense calling on witnesses and references to the children of the defendants, but federal laws states,” a criminal conviction is not to be lightly overturned on the basis of a prosecutor’s comments standing alone,”
According to federal law, a court cannot reverse a jury’s decision unless there is supporting evidence that proves the convicted individual innocent beyond reasonable doubt.
Federal law also allows a court to grant a new trial if the interests of justice so requires and because Rahman is requesting for a new trial on the grounds of insufficient evidence and prosecution errors, the court found neither allegations enough to grant the request for a new trial.
