Assistant United States Attorney: Jeffrey Auerhahn
According to United States v. Ferrara, civil action #98-cv-11104-MLW. (District of Massachusetts/Boston)
DOCUMENT 115 Filed 12-11-2006 pages 1-8 independently corroborates the following:
Vincent Ferrara , Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf, held: that Assistant United States Attorney: Jeffrey Auerhahn had intentionally withheld from Ferrara, Pasquale (Patsy) Barone, and their co defendant Raymond J. Patriarca the Coleman memorandum, a far less detailed and damaging version of it that AUSA: Auerhahn personally prepared, and the vital exculpatory information that Jordan had provided in recantation of his earlier statements to the government. id. at 394-97 and n.10. While expressly identifying the serious issue, Judge Wolf did not decide whether AUSA: Auerhahn’s testimony that he did not recall either the important information Jordan provided, the Coleman memorandum, or the memorandum he himself prepared constituted perjury. id. at 397 n.10.With the agreement of the government, Barone was released on October 24, 2003, from his unlawfully obtained life sentence. id. at 408; see also, Oct. 24, 2003 Transcript. Judge Wolf’s decision to order the release of Ferrara after 16 years in prison was affirmed by the First Circuit. See Ferrara, 456 F.3d 278 (1st Cir.2006).
Barone and Ferrara released:
The misconduct by Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA): Auerhahn that resulted in the release of Barone and Ferrara was part of a pattern of similar misconduct by him. In 1991, Judge Wolf held that AUSA: Auerhahn had attempted to mislead the defendants and the Court concerning a motion to suppress evidence of a LCN induction ceremony intercepted pursuant to a warrant for “roving” electronic surveillance. see united States v. Ferrara, 771 F.Supp. 1266, 1308 (D.Mass.1991); Ferrara, 384 at 391-92. As a result of lengthy hearings in another case in 1998, Judge Wolf discovered that AUSA: Auerhahn did not in 1991 complete or fully correct the record regarding the motion to suppress even after that misconduct was discovered. see United States v. Salemme, 91 F.Supp.2d 268-289 (D.Mass.1999); Ferrara, 384 F.2d at 392.
In addition:During the [1993 Barone] trial, it was discovered that AUSA: Auerhahn had repeatedly improperly failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to Barone. Seven or eight of the discovery violations concerned the failure to disclose exculpatory information relating to Jordan’s testimony. see October. 18, 1993 Barone, Tr. at 35-6. AUSA: Auerhahn was responsible for each of them. id. at 48-9. the Court informed the jury of the discovery violations that had been discerned. See Oct. 18, 1993 Barone tr. at 51.Ferrara, 394 F.Supp.2d at 402. AUSA: Auerhahn has been a member of the Bar of the United States District Court District of Massachusetts since 1980. As such, he was prohibited from violating the ethical requirements and rules concerning the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See Local Rule 83.6(4)(B) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
For The Record: PROJECT MARINO, notes that Assistant United States Attorney: Jeffrey Auerhahn also prosecuted the Vincent M. Marino case which in that case AUSA: Auerhahn also committed a pattern of egregious gross governmental misconduct against Marino as the PUBLIC records so supports See Marino, supra.Vincent M. Marino, was also a victim of Assistant United States Attorney: Jeffrey Auerhahn’s egregious historic and current misconduct.
See independently corroborated proof:
Marino v. United States Attorney’s Office District of Massachusetts, et al., civil action #12-cv-872-RMC. (District of Columbia) PENDING;
Marino v. Department of Justice , et al., civil action #12-cv-865-RMC. (District of Columbia) PENDING;
United States v. Marino, United States Court of Appeals For The First Circuit #12-2253 & #12-2324 (1st Cir.2012) PENDING;
United States v. Marino, CR-97-40009-NMG. (District of Massachusetts/Boston/Worcester) ON APPEAL.
- Also for the record the government has also stipulated that they withheld from 200,000 to 1 million pages from Marino’s 1998 and1999 RICO trials they may lead to Marino’s actual, factual and legal innocence of the June 16, 1989 Salemme attempted murder, of Count One: RICO Conviction and Sentence of 20 years of Count Two: RICO conspiracy conviction and sentence of 10 years and of Count Three: Conspiracy to murder conviction and sentence of 5 years all to be run consecutive with each other for a total of 35 years.Also note that Marino was found on December 22, 1999 Verdict Sheet Jury trial of the June 16, 1989 Salemme attempted murder NOT PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT of predicate racketeering act A-2 in Counts One RICO and Count Two RICO conspiracy charges.
However with the urging of the government (AUSA: Auerhahn and Young), the Court (Judge: Nathaniel M. Gorton) dramatically enhanced Marino’s sentence an extra 25 years by the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof for the June 16, 1989 Salemme attempted murder violating Marino’s Due Process of the 5th Amendment and6th Amendment’s Jury Trial Rights.
Because of the both the District Court’s mistakes, the Appeals Court’s mistakes and the government’s misconduct resulted in Marino being unlawfully and unconstitutionally held over 16 years in prison without Due Process of Law in violations of the 5th Amendment and Jury Trial Right 6th Amendment. As of this date the government INTENTIONALLY failed to correct the record and instead covered up the misconduct also placing some of the documents under seal: See United States v. Salemme, 91 F.Supp.2d pages 267-269 (exhibits: 188-246) (D.Mass.1999) which supports egregious governmental misconduct, Brady violations and Marino’s actual, factual and legal innocence of the June 16, 1989 Salemme attempted murder and the unlawful extra 25 year enhancements. AS THE PUBLIC RECORDS SO SUPPORTS.
NEWLY DECIDED United States Supreme Court case:
Alleyne v. United States, Decided June 17, 2013, which held that all enhancements must first be submitted to the Grand Jury and found by a Jury Beyond a Reasonable Doubt which they did in Marino case, however this NEW case also found that the Judge DID NOT HAVE THE POWER OR JURISDICTION TO ENHANCE Marino’s SENTENCE BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE and cannot take the power always from the jury.
The New Supreme Court case should also be retroactive since it is powered by the 13 year old case Apprendi v. New Jersey. decided in the year 2000 during Marino’s DIRECT APPEAL, which Marino preserved the trial record and used this issue on his Direct Appeal, however the Appeals Court for the First Circuit improperly did not use Apprendi’s logic.See United States v. Marino, 277 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.2002). In support.