United States District Court, E.D. New York
States Attorney's Office, Eastern District of New York,
Lara Treinis Gatz, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Schoer, Esq. Counsel for the Defendant
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER
D. SPATT United States District Judge
December 8, 2011, after a three-week jury trial, the
Defendant Sharod Williams (the “Defendant” or
“Williams”) was convicted of 15 criminal counts,
the same counts for which he had been indicted by a grand
jury on August 12, 2010. This conviction stems from a series
of robberies, which resulted in a conviction of one count of
Robbery Conspiracy, two counts of Post Office and Bank
Robbery Conspiracy, seven counts of Substantive Robberies,
and five counts of Brandishing a Firearm in Furtherance of
the Substantive Robberies. Williams was arrested on June 16,
2010 and has been incarcerated ever since. He is currently
scheduled to be sentenced on December 1, 2017.
before the Court is a motion by the Defendant, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Fed. R. Crim.
P.” or “Rule”) 33 for a new trial based on
(1) claimed ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; (2)
purported newly discovered evidence; (3) alleged
Brady violations; and (4) the alleged presentation
of false testimony. For the following reasons, the
Defendant's motion is denied in its entirety.
purposes of this motion, familiarity with the underlying
trial record, which spans almost two thousand (2, 000)
transcribed pages, is presumed. The Court's discussion of
the evidence adduced at the trial will be limited to the
specific challenges presently raised by the Defendant. In
this regard, references to the trial transcript are denoted
stated above, on December 8, 2011, after a three-week trial,
the jury convicted the Defendant on 15 counts of criminal
conduct. The Defendant's trial counsel, Randi Chavis,
Esq., requested that the Court poll the jury. The Court
obliged counsel's request and the polling revealed that
the jury's verdict was unanimous on all counts. Tr.
1870-1919 (“Let the record indicate that the oral
polling exactly coincides with the written verdict sheet, and
the foreman's oral recitation of the verdict.”).
After the Court recessed the jury, Ms. Chavis requested the
right to reserve ten days to submit post-trial motions to the
Court. The Court granted Ms. Chavis's request. Tr. 1919.
was originally scheduled for March 23, 2011. Since then, the
Court has granted more than twenty motions to adjourn the
Defendant's sentencing. At this juncture, sentencing has
been delayed more than six years from its original scheduled
September 18, 2014, Gary Schoer, Esq was appointed under the
Criminal Justice Act as the Defendant's counsel to
replace Ms. Chavis.
October 3, 2014, Mr. Schoer asked the Court for a
postponement of sentencing for the first time, citing his
continuing review of the Presentence Report. See
Docket Entry (“DE”) 382. The Court granted this
request. See DE 383.
January 29, 2015, the Court again granted a request by Mr.
Schoer to continue sentencing to allow for additional time to
review the trial transcript. See DE 396-97.
April 13, 2015, Mr. Schoer again asked the Court to continue
the sentencing, asserting for the first time that he was
“presently researching and investigating various issues
that [he] intend[s] to raise on Mr. William's
[sic] behalf as part of his sentence
proceeding.” DE 406. This request was once again
granted. See DE 407.
more than a year and a half, Mr. Schoer continued to ask, and
this Court continued to grant, sentencing adjournments to
investigate issues he planned to raise “as part of his
sentence proceeding.” See, e.g., DE 443-44.
September 30, 2016, Mr. Schoer requested a sentencing
adjournment “in light of a motion [he] expect[ed] to
file on December 9, 2016[.]” DE 462. This request was
granted. See DE 463.
present motion in this action was filed on December 9, 2016
by the Defendant seeking a new trial, or alternatively an