Group items tagged

SEYMOUR , Chief Judge. After a joint jury trial, co-defendants Ardashir (aka Ardie) and Daryoush (aka Steve), along with Jalal (aka Jack) Rahseparian, were convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering. All three appealed. Jack's appeal is addressed in the companion opinion, see United States v. Rahseparian, No. 99-6031 (Nov. 7, 2000). Ardie contends on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Ardie and Steve contend a new trial is necessary due to the prosecutor's comment on their failure to testify in violation of Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965). Steve further claims a new trial is required because of certain incriminating hearsay statements elicited by the prosecutor in violation of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). We affirm. I BACKGROUND Ardie and Steve Rahseparian are the sons of Jack Rahseparian. At the time of the conduct for which they were charged, Steve resided in Altoona, Pennsylvania, Ardie resided in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and Jack resided and worked in Shawnee, Oklahoma. The government contended at trial that Ardie and Steve Rahseparian formed Genesis Marketing, a telemarketing company, through which they and their father conspired to commit and did commit mail fraud from May 1994 to May 1995. The government further successfully argued that Ardie, Steve, and Jack Rahseparian laundered the proceeds from the telemarketing scheme through Jack's business checking accounts. Brad Russell, the company's only employee other than the Rahseparians themselves, testified on behalf of the government. Mr. Russell was a personal friend of Ardie. The two worked out of Ardie's apartment in Fort Smith as the sole telemarketers for Genesis Marketing. Mr. Russell testified that he and Ardie would entice customers over the telephone to buy products, such as water purifiers and "Say No to Drugs" kits, at highly inflated pric

Page 1 Final Report CJ - 1 OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AN IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION Prepared by 2001-2002 Orange CountyGrand Jury June, 2002 Page 2 CJ - 2 2001-2002 Orange County Grand Jury COMMENDATIONS There are many men and women: managers, deputy district attorneys, and investigators in the Office of the District Attorney who have demonstrated great professionalism and integrity. They have worked in their offices, entered the courts, and gone into the streets to insure that the criminal justice system in Orange County is held to the highest standards. The 2001-2002 Orange County Grand Jury extends its highest commendation to these dedicated public servants and asks that the electorate of the county join us in this commendation. Page 3 Final Report CJ - 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page COMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 5 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 7 Major Accomplishments of the District Attorney's Office under the Current Administration............................................................................................................ 7 INITIATION OF THE INVESTIGATION & METHOD OF STUDY ............................. 9 ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURE - Attorney Positions ....................................... 11 Factual Background - Post 1998 Campaign............................................................. 11 Findings..................................................................................................................... 15 Recommendations ......................................................................................

Page 1 Final Report CJ - 1 OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AN IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION Prepared by 2001-2002 Orange CountyGrand Jury June, 2002 Page 2 CJ - 2 2001-2002 Orange County Grand Jury COMMENDATIONS There are many men and women: managers, deputy district attorneys, and investigators in the Office of the District Attorney who have demonstrated great professionalism and integrity. They have worked in their offices, entered the courts, and gone into the streets to insure that the criminal justice system in Orange County is held to the highest standards. The 2001-2002 Orange County Grand Jury extends its highest commendation to these dedicated public servants and asks that the electorate of the county join us in this commendation. Page 3 Final Report CJ - 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page COMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 5 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 7 Major Accomplishments of the District Attorney's Office under the Current Administration............................................................................................................ 7 INITIATION OF THE INVESTIGATION & METHOD OF STUDY ............................. 9 ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURE - Attorney Positions ....................................... 11 Factual Background - Post 1998 Campaign............................................................. 11 Findings..................................................................................................................... 15 Recommendations ......................................................................................

This duty to accommodate is perfectly consistent with the well-established due process principle that, "within the limits of practicability, a State must afford to all individuals a meaningful opportunity to be heard" in its courts. Boddie, 401 U. S., at 379 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).20 Our cases have recognized a number of affirmative obligations that flow from this principle: the duty to waive filing fees in certain family-law and criminal cases,21 the duty to provide transcripts to criminal defendants seeking review of their convictions,22 and the duty to provide counsel to certain criminal defendants.23 Each of these cases makes clear that ordinary considerations of cost and convenience alone cannot justify a State's failure to provide individuals with a meaningful right of access to the courts. Judged against this backdrop, Title II's affirmative obligation to accommodate persons with disabilities in the administration of justice cannot be said to be "so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior." Boerne, 521 U. S., at 532; Kimel, 528 U. S., at 86.24 It is, rather, a reasonable prophylactic measure, reasonably targeted to a legitimate end. For these reasons, we conclude that Title II, as it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts, constitutes a valid exercise of Congress' §5 authority to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.