Criminal Complaint - United States v. David Staveley PPP fraud case (2022-12-01)

Summary

Document 117-1 in United States v. David Staveley, Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, filed December 1, 2022 and marked Exhibit 1. It is a letter dated November 4, 2022 from Jason Knight, former defense counsel, to Lee H. Vilker, Criminal Chief of the United States Attorney's Office, written in response to a court order negating attorney-client privilege. The letter gives counsel's account of his advice to Mr. Staveley about entering a guilty plea. It describes plea-offer discussions, evidence reviewed with the client at a May 4, 2021 meeting, the signing of the plea agreement on May 6, 2021, and the forwarding of a discovery hard drive on April 20, 2021. The document is four pages.

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

Full text

Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA   Document 117-1   Filed 12/01/22   Page 1 of 4 PageID
                                  #: 1104




                             EXHIBIT 1
Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA           Document 117-1         Filed 12/01/22      Page 2 of 4 PageID
                                          #: 1105


 The Law Of ce of                                            One Turks Head Place, Suite 1440
                                                                          Providence, RI 02903

 Jason Knight                                             O: (401) 865-6075 F: (401) 216-8234
                                                              jason.knight@jasonknightlaw.com




 November 4, 2022

 Lee H. Vilker
 Criminal Chief
 United States Attorney’s Office
 District of Rhode Island

 Via email to Lee.Vilker@usdoj.gov

 Subj: Jason Knight Statement re: U.S. v. Staveley 20-cr-00074-MSM

 Lee,

 I hope this letter finds you well. I am in possession of the court order and the above captioned
 case negating the attorney client privilege and directing me to respond to your inquiries
 regarding my representation of David Staveley.

 Accordingly, I am responding to your specific request to provide a narrative and associated
 documents concerning my advice to Mr. Staveley regarding his decision to enter a guilty plea.

 I represented Mr. Staveley in Rhode Island U.S. District Court case 20-CR-74 MSM in which he
 was charged with conspiracy, several counts of bank fraud, false statements to the Small
 Business Administration, aggravated identity theft, and failure to appear in court (escape).

 Mr. Staveley was first arrested on or about May 5, 2020. He was represented by another attorney
 from May of 2020 until I entered my appearance on or about March 1, 2021.

 In this matter I took contemporaneous “running notes” of events in the case and have relied on
 those notes and my memory to fashion my response to the complaint.

 After I entered my appearance, I took steps to familiarize myself with the case and the evidence.
 During the entirety of my representation of Mr. Staveley, he was detained at the Wyatt Detention
 Facility in Central Falls, RI.

 During the months of March and April 2021, I received an enormous amount of discovery and I
 spent many hours culling through the material. When I visited the client during this period, each
 visit was lengthy and we discussed a variety of issues including the strength of the evidence.




           fi
Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA             Document 117-1         Filed 12/01/22      Page 3 of 4 PageID
                                            #: 1106




 During each of these visits, the client wished to discuss at length certain mitigating factors in his
 case and why the evidence did not present a complete picture of the case. The client was also
 obsessed with the role of an attorney who had been deeply involved with several transactions
 relevant to the fraud counts.

 At some point, the prosecutor, put forward a plea offer with a time limit. My understanding was
 that the prosecutor was frustrated that he was about a year into the case and it was still pending. I
 indicated to the prosecutor that I could not comply with his deadline because of my recent entry
 into the case and that there were at least some counts of the indictment that were not entirely
 supported by the evidence. Based on these discussions, the prosecutor put forward a new offer,
 dismissing some counts, and a new deadline.

 With this offer in hand, I visited the client on two separate occasions to discuss the offer in light
 of the relevant evidence. Specifically, I brought the new plea offer for his consideration on May
 4, 2021.

 During the May 4, 2021 meeting. I reviewed the plea agreement and several pieces of evidence
 with the client including:

 1. A video recording the co-defendant’s statement to the police along with the government’s
    proffer report. I made it clear to Mr. Staveley that his co-defendant was cooperating with the
    government and would testify against him at trial.
 2. A collection of police reports showing Steven Scott’s role in the matter.
 3. A collection of emails, purportedly written by Staveley, obtained by Steven Scott and
    delivered to law enforcement discussing fraudulent activity.
 4. A variety of falsified payroll forms that were part of the “PPP” loan application.

 I informed the client that it was my belief that the government could prevail on the fraud and
 conspiracy charges if it was able competently present this evidence and other items to the jury.
 Additionally, I informed the client that the plea agreement involved a dismissal of a charge that
 carried a two year mandatory consecutive sentence. Finally I also informed Mr. Staveley that,
 despite whatever happened with the fraud charges, he was still facing a mandatory consecutive
 sentence on the escape charge and I was confident he would be convicted of that charge.

 We also discussed the guidelines, the sentencing judge, and my expectations about how she
 would react to the case. I informed Mr. Staveley that the guidelines were advisory. I also
 informed Mr. Staveley that the judge was relatively new to the bench and had been public
 defender. I advised him that the judge was not “soft” but might be receptive to his trauma history
 and how that experience had affected him during his current incarceration. Importantly, I made
 no promises as to what the judge would do and made it clear that the judge could sentence him
 harshly if she chose to.
Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA           Document 117-1        Filed 12/01/22     Page 4 of 4 PageID
                                          #: 1107



 I left a copy of the plea agreement for Mr. Staveley and told him I would return in a day or two
 to give him time to consider the offer and the evidence. I visited him again on May 6, 2021. On
 that date the client signed the plea agreement. It was made clear to him that he could back out
 and opt for a trial anytime prior to the actual change of plea hearing.

 Regarding Mr. Staveley’s complaint that he did not have access to the government’s discovery
 production, on April 20, 2021 I forwarded a hard drive containing the entire discovery
 production to Mr. Staveley pursuant to Wyatt’s evidence procedures. I understand that Mr.
 Staveley had difficulty communicating with Wyatt staff to set up a viewing time. I was not privy
 to those conversations and I do not know what Mr. Staveley did to effectuate a viewing session.
 At some point after his change of plea hearing, he indicated he had not been able to view the
 evidence collection and I directed him to a particular staff member to facilitate a viewing.


 Respectfully,




 Jason Knight


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.rid.49679.117.1.pdf

Size

137,954 bytes

SHA-256

c3c7ee20fa4f9ae23bac6a118a42b48ab671c93af2c242339815e04e196d5d99

Our copy

gov.uscourts.rid.49679.117.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)