News Main Page
Email A Friend
June 21, 2018
Former Orange County Life Insurance Agent, Brian Jared Smart, Sentenced To 15 Years For Elder Financial Abuse
June 20, 2018
California Division of Workers’ Compensation Posts Adjustments to Official Medical Fee Schedule (DMEPOS)
June 17, 2018
Former Cambridge Employees Reunite at Restaurant in Pasadena
June 16, 2018
Erwin Mejia, Former Material Damage Appraiser, Sentenced To 10 Years In State Prison For His Role In Staged Collision Ring
|Prosecution Files Petition For Court Inquiry Into Conflicts Of Interest Of Defense Counsel In Criminal Organization Munir Uwaydah Case|
By Lonce Lamonte - September 10, 2017
On August 2nd 2017, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, led in this case of Criminal Organization Munir Uwaydah by lead prosecutor Dayan Mathai, filed a Petition to the court of Judge Larry Fidler to conduct an inquiry into conflict of interest issues for some defense attorneys representing defendants in this case.
Specifically the Petition for inquiry is aimed most intensely at Benjamin Gluck, from the Century City law firm of Bird Marella. Gluck is cited as the most egregious example of a defense lawyer in a multitude of conflicts of interest with numerous present and past clients consisting of defendants, uncharged conspirators, and witnesses to this case. Gluck ostensibly represents Paul Turley, a long-time Uwaydah devotee and lackey who presently is incarcerated; however the prosecution asserts vociferously that Gluck’s true loyalty is to Dr. Munir Uwaydah, the boss of the criminal enterprise and a co-defendant and co-conspirator with Turley. This loyalty to Uwaydah undermines non-conflicted representation of Paul Turley.
Munir Uwaydah circa 2008, copyright Lonce Lamonte, all rights reserved
Benjamin Gluck has been the go-to lawyer for the entire criminal organization as a whole since 2010. The prosecution feels and asserts that the potential conflicts pose a direct threat to the fundamental constitutional rights of the defendants, the integrity of the criminal justice system, and to the resilience of any resulting criminal convictions.
It is believed by the prosecution that most-- if not all-- of the legal fees for all the defendants are being paid by Munir Uwaydah. This puts each defendant at a material disadvantage as it threatens his constitutional rights given by the 6th amendment for independent, non-conflicted, legal representation. It inhibits testimony adverse to Dr. Uwaydah across the board, since he’s picking up the tab, while it puts Uwaydah’s self-interest above each one of the defendants’.
The prosecution asserts Gluck’s obligation is to represent Turley but because the companies in question were owned by either Uwaydah or another co-conspirator represented by Gluck, a massive conflict of interest presents itself. The prosecutors state they have attempted to obtain conflict waivers but without success.
The Petition explains that the law dictates special steps must be taken to ensure defendants are aware of any potential conflict that could deny them effective assistance of counsel. The integrity of the court must keep aware of potential appellate challenges from compromising any jury verdict.
Lead prosecutor, Dayan Mathai, leaves the courthouse on August 22, 2016. He signed the Petition requesting a court inquiry into conflicts of interest highlighting defense attorney Benjamin Gluck on August 2nd 2017. If the court finds the conflicts to be irreconciable even with the signing of waivers, Gluck could be recused from this case. photo copyright Lonce Lamonte, all rights reserved
The prosecution quoted from a U.S. Supreme Court case (Wheat vs. United States 1988): “While the right to select and be represented by one’s preferred attorney is comprehended by the Sixth Amendment, the essential aim of the Amendment is to guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant rather than inexorably be represented by the lawyer he prefers.”
In this 83-page Petition, the prosecution went on with, while discussing the Wheat case, that an effective advocate, as is due to each defendant by the U.S. Constitution is one who is “unhindered by a conflict of interests”.
firstname.lastname@example.org, Lonce Lamonte, journalist; copyright adjustercom and Lonce Lamonte, all rights reserved