JOINDER in NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for to Hold a Kastigar Hearing, to… — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 346)

Summary

Manuk Grigoryan's Joinder in Richard Ayvazyan and Marietta Terabelian's Motion for a Kastigar Hearing, to Disqualify the Prosecution Team, and to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 338), Document 346 filed 05/19/21 in the Central District of California, Case No. 20CR-00579(A)-SVW. Through counsel John Hanusz, Mr. Grigoryan joins the motion, dated May 19, 2021. The joinder argues that he was first charged when the grand jury returned the First Superseding Indictment on March 9, 2021, nearly five months after the alleged compelled testimony from Mr. Ayvazyan and Ms. Terabelian and access to their digital devices seized on October 19, 2020. It argues that the timing alone supports an inference that the prosecution team used tainted information, and that the burden falls on the government.

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

JOINDER IN MOTION FOR KASTIGAR HEARING 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
 
HANUSZ LAW, PC 
John Hanusz (SBN 277367) 
Email: john@hanuszlaw.com 
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1050 
Los Angeles, California 90017 
Telephone: (213) 204-4200 
 
 
Counsel for Manuk Grigoryan  
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 
 
v. 
 
MANUK GRIGORYAN, 
 
 
 
 Defendant. 
  
Case No. 20CR-00579(A)-SVW 
 
MANUK GRIGORYAN’S 
JOINDER IN RICHARD 
AYVAZYAN AND MARIETTA 
TERABELIAN’S MOTION FOR 
A KASTIGAR HEARING, TO 
DISQUALIFY THE 
PROSECUTION TEAM, AND 
TO DISMISS (DKT. NO. 338)  
 
 
 
 
  
 
Manuk Grigoryan, by and through counsel, hereby joins in Richard 
Ayvazyan and Marietta Terabelian’s Motion for a Kastigar Hearing, to 
Disqualify the Prosecution Team, and to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 338.  
 
Dated: May 19, 2021 
  
 
Respectfully submitted,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ John Hanusz _____  
 
 
 
 
 
 
John Hanusz 
 
 
  
 
Counsel for Mr. Grigoryan
 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 346     Filed 05/19/21     Page 1 of 4   Page ID
#:3513

 
2 
JOINDER IN MOTION FOR KASTIGAR HEARING 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
JOINDER 
 
The grand jury initially charged Mr. Grigoryan in this matter when it 
returned the First Superseding Indictment on March 9, 2021, nearly five months 
after law enforcement officials compelled involuntary testimony from Mr. 
Ayvazyan and Ms. Terabelian, and obtained access to their digital devices in 
violation of the Fifth Amendment. Dkt. No. 154. These devices, seized on 
October 19, 2020, contained information relating to Mr. Grigoryan, including 
contact information, photographs of Mr. Grigoryan, and identification cards in 
the name of Anton Kudiumov, who the government alleges is an alias of Mr. 
Grigoryan. See Dkt. No. 338 at 13; Dkt. No. 154 at 2 (alleging the Kudiumov 
alias). This evidence, obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment, was 
handled, viewed, considered, and used by numerous agents and members of the 
prosecution team, including the case prosecutors, who provided these materials 
in discovery. As one of the case agents previously acknowledged, the materials 
seized from the digital devices allowed law enforcement officials to further their 
investigation and develop their theory of the case. Dkt. No. 338 at 12-13. 
 
Although the grand jury returned the initial indictment in this matter on 
November 17, 2020, it did not charge Mr. Grigoryan until March 9, 2021. Dkt. 
Nos. 32, 154. At this point, the prosecution team had been in possession of, and 
had made use of, unconstitutionally obtained evidence – evidence which relates 
to Mr. Grigoryan – for nearly five months. Indeed, it was not until the 
prosecution team had considered and made use of the illegally-obtained evidence 
that the grand jury returned charges against Mr. Grigoryan.1 
 
1 The unconstitutionally obtained evidence also appears to have served as the impetus for the 
government approaching a witness who later became a confidential informant. Based on the 
government-produced summaries of that witness’s interviews—all of which occurred after the 
government’s pre-trial strategy was tainted—it appears that the government will call this 
witness to testify against Mr. Grigoryan. The government’s decision to approach the witness, 
its discussions with her, and her potential testimony are tainted and could prejudice Mr. 
Grigoryan. 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 346     Filed 05/19/21     Page 2 of 4   Page ID
#:3514

 
3 
JOINDER IN MOTION FOR KASTIGAR HEARING 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
 
Mr. Grigoryan submits that the timing of the charging decision alone gives 
rise to an inference that the prosecution team used tainted information to further 
its case, particularly as it relates to Mr. Grigoryan. But Mr. Grigoryan does not 
need to show that the prosecution was tainted by the consideration of 
unconstitutionally-obtained evidence. On the contrary, the burden falls squarely 
on the government. It is the prosecution’s “heavy burden” to show that “all 
evidence it proposes to use was obtained from legitimate independent sources” 
that are “wholly independent of the compelled testimony.” See Dkt. No. 338 at 5 
(quoting Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 460, 461-62 (1972)) (emphasis 
added). In addition, controlling Ninth Circuit law makes clear that the 
prosecution’s trial strategy, as well as any presentations to the grand jury, must 
be wholly free of taint. United States v. Danielson, 325 F.3d 1054, 1072 (9th Cir. 
2003). More broadly, the government must show that the compelled testimony 
was not “in any way used to build a case.” United States v. Montoya, 45 F.3d 
1286, 1293 (9th Cir. 1995). Every link in the prosecution chain must be free of 
taint. United States v. Schmidgall, 25 F.3d 1523, 1528 (11th Cir. 1994).  
 
The Court has ordered the prosecution to put forth declarations by case 
agents regarding their consideration and use of the evidence obtained in violation 
of the Fifth Amendment. Dkt. No. 341. The government has moved for 
reconsideration of the Court’s order. Dkt. No. 344.  
 
Mr. Grigoryan respectfully submits that, given the fact that the entire 
prosecution team must be free of taint, any individual who possessed, reviewed, 
or discussed the tainted information at any time be required to testify and 
demonstrate that the taint did not affect their actions or decision-making process 
in any manner. This necessarily includes the prosecutors, who are responsible for 
“build[ing] a case” and presenting the case to the grand jury. And, as Danielson 
makes clear, the government must show that “all of its pre-trial and trial strategy 
was based on independent sources.” Danielson, 352 F.3d at 1074. Mr. Grigoryan 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 346     Filed 05/19/21     Page 3 of 4   Page ID
#:3515

 
4 
JOINDER IN MOTION FOR KASTIGAR HEARING 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
submits that the Court’s determination cannot be made without testimony from 
the prosecutors themselves. As result, he requests that the Court order all 
individuals who possessed, reviewed, or discussed the illegally-obtained 
evidence to provide testimony in this matter. It is the government’s burden to 
show a lack of taint, and the defense is entitled to challenge the government’s 
evidence through cross-examination. To ensure that the grand jury was 
completely unaffected by the evidence at issue, the Court should order the 
government to disclose the grand jury transcripts to the defense in advance of the 
hearing as well. 
 
Moreover, as the government must show that its trial presentation is 
unaffected in any way by the evidence at issue, the Court should order that the 
government disclose its trial exhibits in advance of the hearing. No meaningful 
evaluation of the evidence that the government intends to use at trial can be had 
without actual consideration of the evidence itself. The government should not 
be able to admit evidence at trial that has not been analyzed and proven free of 
taint under Kastigar. Conducting the inquiry pretrial ensures that the trial will be 
free of any error resulting from the taint. 
 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Mr. Grigoryan joins in the Motion filed by Mr. Ayvazyan and Ms. 
Terabelian, and requests that the Court keep the previously scheduled hearing on 
calendar. He additionally requests that the government be ordered to provide 
testimony from every individual who possessed, reviewed, or discussed the 
tainted evidence at any point. Similarly, the government should be ordered to 
provide its list of trial exhibits to ensure a full evaluation of the same at the 
Kastigar hearing. 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 346     Filed 05/19/21     Page 4 of 4   Page ID
#:3516

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.346.0.pdf

Size

196,730 bytes

SHA-256

f8a2b4b29b73ac12a8ac67a69eb040f0cef631d3408ca89595d6a096eed4cdb3

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.346.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)