REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion as to Carl Delano Torjagbo filed by Carl Delano Torjagbo re:… — USA v. Torjagbo (Dkt. 205)

Summary

A Reply to Government's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial, Document 205, filed 07/08/25 by Karl Lucius Delano a/k/a Carl Delano Torjagbo in Case No. 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC, Northern District of Georgia. He argues that the government brought a new indictment close to the July 21, 2025 trial date, with arraignment on the Third Superseding Indictment set for July 11, 2025. He says the government corrected its earlier understanding that a second identification number was an ITIN rather than a second SSN, and that new discovery will arrive only 10 calendar days before trial. He also says CJA funds for experts, investigators and appointed counsel will not be paid until after October 1, 2025.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
 
)
v.
)
                                 
)    Case No. 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC
)
  Second Superseding 
CARL DELANO TORJAGBO,
)
a/k/a
)
KARL LUCIUS DELANO.
)
)
____________________________
)
REPLY TO 
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S 
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
COMES NOW the Defendant, KARL LUCIUS DELANO, a/k/a CARL
DELANO TORJAGBO, by and through counsel, and files this reply to the
government’s response in opposition (Doc. 203) to Defendant’s motion to
continue trial. In reply and in further support of his motion to continue trial (Doc.
197), Mr. Delano shows as follows:
The government chose to bring a new indictment, very close in time to the
scheduled trial date of July 21, 2025. (Doc. 198). Arraignment on the Third
Superseding Indictment is scheduled for July 11, 2025. (Doc. 201). The
government opposes Mr. Delano’s request for continuance of his trial. 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 205     Filed 07/08/25     Page 1 of 7

The government admits it (apparently) made mistakes, for years, in the way 
it charged the case:
[T]he Government initially understood that Defendant filed one using
his Social Security Number (SSN) and one using an individual
taxpayer identification number (ITIN). On approximately June 24,
2025, the Government learned that what it understood was an ITIN
was in fact a second SSN that Defendant had obtained using a
different date of birth.
(Gov. Response, Doc. 203, p. 2).
Mr. Delano’s need for a continuance is not of his own making. It is the
government’s fault for correcting (and making) mistakes that it has had years to
correct, well before what is almost the eve of trial.
The government seeks to minimize the effect and implication of the change
to the wire fraud counts: 
The wire fraud charges in the Third Superseding Indictment are
almost identical to those in the First and Second Superseding
Indictments, except that the second form of identification is now
accurately described as a SSN, as opposed to an ITIN. 
(Doc. 203, p. 3).
First, the new indictment charge more than just “a second SSN, as opposed
to an ITIN.” It specifically charges, “a Social Security Number (SSN) that was
associated with a date of birth in 1979,” and “a different SSN that was associated
with a date of birth in 1975.” (Doc. 198, p.6). Furthermore, the government’s
2
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 205     Filed 07/08/25     Page 2 of 7

notice of intent to introduce 404(b) evidence, or so-called inextricably intertwined
evidence, (Doc. 196), tells a very different story: “Because one  person cannot
have two birthdates, the implication of this testimony is that at least one of
Defendant’s SSNs must have been obtained using false or fraudulent
information.” (Gov. 404(b) notice, Doc. 196, pp.2-3)(emphasis added).
Additionally, the government intends to introduce under Rule 404(b) evidence that
Mr. Delano obtained Florida and Texas drivers’ licenses using the date of birth of
1975, but he later obtained a Georgia driver’s license with a birth date of 1979.
(Doc. 196, p.3). 
In the new indictment, the government adds, for the first time, the allegation
that a second SSN was obtained using a different date of birth. (Doc. 198, p. 6).
Perhaps this addition is an attempt to strengthen the government’s argument that
the second SSN and birth date were inextricably intertwined with the wire fraud
scheme counts. However, inserting such extrinsic and collateral matters into the
indictment at this point is gratuitous and improper. These new allegation are
neither elements of the charged offenses, nor required to prove the government’s
case. 
The government downplays Mr. Delano’s concerns about having to review
and investigate new Rule 16 discovery materials: “Defendant also contends that he
3
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 205     Filed 07/08/25     Page 3 of 7

will now have to review new discovery related to his acquisition of multiple SSNs
(Doc. 197 at 3–4), but this concern is unfounded, as the Government anticipates
producing less than 10 additional pages of discovery related to Defendant’s
acquisition of two SSNs.” (Doc. 203, p.3). 
As of this filing, the new discovery has not been produced to the defense.
Admittedly, discovery is not due to be produced to the Defendant until the
arraignment on July 11, 2025. Fed. R. Crim. Pro. Rule 16.  However, July 11,
2025, is only 10 calender days and 5 business days before trial is set to begin. A
defendant deserves sufficient time to review new discovery and file pretrial
motions related to it and the new indictment. 
Last, the government complains about Mr. Delano “vaguely asserting that 
[exhaustion of CJA funds] will delay payments to experts and service providers. . .
.” (Doc. 204, p.4). There is nothing vague about it. CJA service providers,
including investigators and experts will not be paid for their work until after
October 1, 2025. Furthermore, appointed counsel will not receive any additional
payments, interim or final, from any CJA case, until after October 1, 2025. 
The government is correct that undersigned counsel notified the government
of his intent to call Dr. Solomon Owusu as a witness at trial. In his July 7, 2025, 
notice, the Defendant informed the government of the following:
4
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 205     Filed 07/08/25     Page 4 of 7

I expect this witness will provide lay opinion under Rule 701 and not
expert opinion, however, just in case, to comply with Rule
16(a)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, I hereby give
notice of my intent to introduce testimony under Rules 702, 703, and
705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 
Counsel also provided the government with a summary of Dr. Owusu’s
expected testimony, a rough version of his qualifications and work history, and an
article he authored. As stated in Defendant’s motion to continue, 
The Criminal Justice Act provides that counsel for an indigent
defendant may make an ex parte request to obtain investigative,
expert, or other services necessary for an adequate defense. Title 18
U.S.C. § 3006 A(e)(1). Defense counsel will have to reveal
confidential and privileged information in order to make the requisite
showing, and the government's presence will infringe upon Mr.
Delano’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and his right to conceal
the preparation of his defense. Where a sufficient showing of need is
made, an indigent defendant is entitled to assistance at the expense of
the government so that he may have "a fair opportunity to present his
defense" and "the opportunity to participate meaningfully in a judicial
proceeding in which his liberty is at stake." Ake v. Oklahoma, 470
U.S. 68, 76 (1985).
 
(Motion to Continue Trial, Doc. 197, p.7). 
Defense counsel remains in discussions and negotiations with Dr. Owusu.
Such negotiations remain protected under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and
should only be revealed ex parte. To the extent the Government complains of
insufficient notice of a potential 702 expert, the best remedy, and candidly, the
needed remedy, is to continue Mr. Delano’s trial. 
5
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 205     Filed 07/08/25     Page 5 of 7

 
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in his original motion, Mr.
Delano requests that this Honorable Court continue his trial to a date convenient to
the Court and the parties, after October 1, 2025. 
Dated:  This 8th day of July, 2025.
Respectfully submitted,
 
s/ L. Burton Finlayson 
L. BURTON FINLAYSON
Attorney for Defendant 
Georgia Bar Number: 261460
LAW OFFICE OF
L. BURTON FINLAYSON, LLC 
685 Linwood Avenue, NE, Suite 200A
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
(404) 872-0560
lbfcourts@aol.com
6
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 205     Filed 07/08/25     Page 6 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have this day electronically filed this Reply with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send email
notifications of such filing upon all counsel of record including the following:
 
      Ms. Kelly Connors, and
      Mr. Nicholas Evert 
     Assistant United States Attorneys
     600 U.S. Courthouse
     75 Ted Turner Drive, S. W.
     Atlanta, Georgia  30303
DATED:  This 8th day of July, 2025.
 s/ L. Burton Finlayson 
L. BURTON FINLAYSON
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT   
Georgia Bar Number: 261460   
  
7
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 205     Filed 07/08/25     Page 7 of 7

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.205.0.pdf

Size

130,379 bytes

SHA-256

e6142ede9f2dee6c8a5e3afdfaece861a7734fb3d44b74cf7395c213777a3440

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.205.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)