Exhibit B — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 329.4)

Summary

Exhibit B to a May 10, 2021 filing in United States v. Richard Ayvazyan et al., No. 20-cr-579 (SVW) (C.D. Cal., Document 329-4) is a May 7, 2021 letter from Steptoe & Johnson LLP, counsel for Richard Ayvazyan, to the prosecutors headed Evidence Tainted By Coerced Statements. The letter says the court last week found that the Miami airport statements of Ayvazyan and Marietta Terabelian on October 19, 2020 were coerced and not voluntary (Dkt. 296), and it cites Kastigar v. United States for the government's affirmative duty to show its evidence has an independent source. It names evidence tied to the devices, including material on Iuliia Zhadko, Nazar Terabelian's credit cards, Turing Info Solutions and Olaf Landsgaard, and demands a list of files used, later subpoenas and witnesses, and steps taken to purge the taint. The letter is the defense's position, not a ruling.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

EXHIBIT B
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 329-4     Filed 05/10/21     Page 1 of 4   Page ID
#:3360

May 7, 2021 
 
By Electronic Mail 
 
Christopher Fenton, Trial Attorney  
Brian Faerstein, Assistant United States Attorney 
Scott Paetty, Assistant United States Attorney 
U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California 
312 N Spring St. 
Los Angeles, CA 90012 
 
  
Re: 
United States v. Richard Ayvazyan et al., No. 20-cr-579 (SVW) 
  
 
Evidence Tainted By Coerced Statements 
 
Dear Counsel: 
 
Last week, the Court held that the government’s extended detention, repeated 
interrogations, and provision of false information rendered the Miami airport statements of 
Richard Ayvazyan and Marietta Terabelian coerced and not voluntary.  Dkt. 296 at 17, 18.  
These compelled statements occurred on October 19, 2020 before much of the government’s 
investigation had occurred.  As you know, the unlawful compulsion of evidence places an 
“affirmative duty” on the government “to prove that the evidence it proposes to use is derived 
from a legitimate source wholly independent of compelled testimony.”  See Kastigar v. United 
States, 406 U.S. 441, 460-61 (1972) (stating this principle in the statutory immunity context and 
noting that it is “commensurate with th[e protection] from invoking the privilege itself”); 
Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219, 223 (1968) (“[T]he ‘essence of a provision forbidding 
the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be 
used before the Court but that it shall not be used at all.’” (quoting Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. 
United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 (1920))); see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum 
Dated March 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1335, 1350 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding that derivative immunity 
was necessary to compel production of decryption password).   
The unlawfully seized evidence and information1 identified by the government as 
“seized” includes, but is not limited to, driver licenses and a social security card belonging to 
                                                                                                                                                 
1 Judge Wilson’s reasoning applies equally to the oral statements of the defendants.  Those oral statements 
were similarly made after the defendants had been detained and separated, after requests for counsel had been 
denied, and after the government had misrepresented the purpose of their interrogations.  See Dkt. 296 at 17.  The 
oral statements were therefore coerced and not voluntary.  Judge Wilson relied on the government’s assurance that it 
(Continued…) 
Nicholas P. Silverman 
202 429 8096 
nsilverman@steptoe.com 
1330 Connecticut Ave. NW 
Washington, DC 20036 
202 429 3000 main 
www.steptoe.com 
 
SteQtoe 
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 329-4     Filed 05/10/21     Page 2 of 4   Page ID
#:3361

May 7, 2021 
Page 2 
 
Iuliia Zhadko; several credit cards belonging to Nazar Terabelian; company information related 
to Turing Info Solutions; information related to Olaf Landsgaard and the Palm Desert house 
added to the Superseding Indictment as Residential Property 3; text messages with Jon Bradford; 
emails from Mary Smbatian; information and driver licenses belonging to Anton Kudiumov; a 
photograph of Manuk Grigoriyan; a cell phone number belonging to Manuk Grigoriyan; 
applications and debit cards related to Mod Interiors, debit cards, driver license, and company 
documentation related to Anna Manukyan; photographs of checks to Belgium LLC and Picadilly 
Jewelers; references and information regarding activities subsequently charged by the state 
government; and substantial other documentation that appears to relate to documents obtained 
and witness interviews conducted after October 19, 2020 (collectively with the interrogation 
responses, “the tainted evidence”). 
In order to evaluate the extent of the tainted evidence obtained by the government and 
potentially exposed to government agents, witnesses, or the grand jury, we require disclosure of 
material information from the government. 
First, the government has identified the following documents or files as tainted 
documents or files that it reviewed and/or used:  
 DOJ_PROD_0000002001 through DOJ_PROD_0000002056 
 DOJ_PROD_0000002339 through DOJ_PROD_0000002358 
 DOJ_PROD_0000023557 through DOJ_PROD_0000023642 
 DOJ_PROD_0000023665 through DOJ_PROD_0000023805 
 DOJ_PROD_0000023806 through DOJ_PROD_0000023815 
 DOJ_PROD_0000153418 through DOJ_PROD_0000153419 
 DOJ_PROD_0000153801 through DOJ_PROD_0000153806 
 DOJ_PROD1_0000000001 through DOJ_PROD1_0000000006 
Please produce a list of all other documents or files on the tainted phones that the government 
reviewed and/or used.  As with all other requests, “the government” includes any member of the 
government’s team (including but not limited to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. 
Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, the Department of Justice Criminal 
Division, the Internal Revenue Service, the Small Business Administration Office of Inspector 
General, the Federal Housing Finance Agency Office of Inspector General, the Department of 
Homeland Security, the California Attorney General’s Office, the Los Angeles Police 
                                                                                                                                                 
will not rely on any oral statements, Dkt. 296 at 14 n.11, and we understand that assurance to include relying on 
such statements to gather evidence.  If our understanding is incorrect, we ask that the government promptly alert us 
and identify what evidence it has obtained that is directly or indirectly derived from the oral statements. 
SteQtoe 
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 329-4     Filed 05/10/21     Page 3 of 4   Page ID
#:3362

May 7, 2021 
Page 3 
 
Department, and other California state and local authorities participating in the investigation 
and/or prosecution of Ayvazyan in this or any matter).  Please identify each file or document 
reviewed, the person or persons who reviewed it, the date of review, any other person or persons 
who received any information or work product derived in any way from this document or file, 
the date of such receipt, and all information related to the government’s review or use of the 
tainted document or file.  
Second, please produce all subpoenas issued after October 19, 2020 and indicate which 
documents were produced in response to each subpoena.  Please indicate whether you contend 
that each subpoena was “derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of compelled 
testimony” and provide all facts supporting that contention. 
Third, please produce a list of all witnesses who were interviewed after October 19, 2020 
and indicate whether they were questioned regarding any of the topics related to the tainted 
evidence or exposed to any tainted document or file or any other tainted evidence. 
Fourth, Agent Palmerton testified contemporaneously that the unlawfully seized digital 
devices led to “the connection that Iuliia Zhadko was, in fact, an alias of Richard Ayvazyan.”  
United States v. Ayvazyan, 20-mj-3857, Dkt. 17 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2020).  Please confirm in 
writing that you do not intend to make this tainted argument at trial. 
Fifth, please produce transcripts from both grand juries and identify any testimony that 
was derived directly or indirectly from the tainted evidence. 
Sixth, please produce the evidence submitted to both grand juries and identify any 
submissions that were derived directly or indirectly from the tainted evidence. 
Seventh, please describe all actions taken to ensure that the taint of unlawfully seized 
evidence has been entirely purged and provide certainty that Mr. Ayvazyan will receive 
procedural justice including a trial based solely on lawfully seized evidence. 
Sincerely, 
/s/ Nicholas P. Silverman       
 
 
 
Ashwin J. Ram 
 
 
Michael A. Keough 
Nicholas P. Silverman (pro hac vice) 
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 
1330 Connecticut Ave. NW 
Washington, DC 20036 
nsilverman@steptoe.com 
 
Counsel for Defendant Richard Ayvazyan 
 
SteQtoe 
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 329-4     Filed 05/10/21     Page 4 of 4   Page ID
#:3363

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.329.4.pdf

Size

1,078,750 bytes

SHA-256

927f6af2f6747f72ab195ec1d1a4245bc5c35edd377cb54f4f405be61bf8689b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.329.4.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)