Guyanese drug accused Roger Khan is facing financial problems forcing him to postpone the appointment of new lead counsel to lead his defence team at his trial for cocaine trafficking in the US.
Khan’s lead counsel, Robert Simels, recently withdrew from the case after being brought up on charges of witness tampering. It was expected that Khan would have retained a new trial counsel in place of Simels within in two weeks. But in a letter to US District Court Judge Dora L Irizarry, attorney Diarmud White stated that “Mr Khan has been unable to engage new trial counsel, due to financial constraints. Although Mr Khan is hopeful that he will be able to make the necessary financial arrangements, there is no assurance that such will be the case.”
As a result, White has requested that the issue of Khan’s legal representation be deferred to November 14.
Khan has been in the US jail since 2006 following his arrest in Trinidad on the 18-count indictment for drug trafficking and heading a criminal enterprise in Guyana. The stunning arrests of his lawyer Simels and his assistant and Khan on charges of attempting to “eliminate” or “neutralise” witnesses has thrown another spanner in the works of Khan’s case as is likely to push back the start of his trial. Khan also faces witness-tampering charges with the two.
Meanwhile, US prosecutor Benton Campbell is seeking to have a special inquiry to determine whether there is any conflict of interest in attorney John Bergendahl’s representing both Khan and Guyanese Sabrina Budhram, who is awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to money laundering. The hearing is also to ensure that Budhram knowingly and voluntarily waives conflict of interest, if she proceeds with the attorney. Campbell has noted that if the court’s threshold inquiry reveals that an attorney suffers from either actual or potential conflict, the court has a “disqualification/waiver obligation,” where if it finds that the conflict is so severe that no rational defendant would waive the conflict, it could disqualify the attorney.
Campbell wrote to the case judge in Buhdram’s case, Edward Korman, asking that a hearing be held in an “abundance of caution, to ensure that the defendant knowingly waives any potential conflict of interest that may exist between the defendant and her attorney…”
The lawyer restated the government’s case that the money Budhram laundered was the proceeds of Khan’s drug operation and mentioned the handwritten money and drug ledger found in Budhram’s home, which makes reference to individuals believed to be co-conspirators of Khan. Campbell said they also have evidence that Khan was in direct contact with Budhram in early 2003.
According to Benton among the risks posed by the two having the same lawyer is the lawyer’s advice to one represented party will be coloured by how that advice will affect the other party. He also warned that a defensive strategy beneficial to one party might be detrimental to the other party. Campbell said too that the potential conflict of interest will animate decisions about the cross-examination of witnesses and that the confidence of one client will be revealed to another.
He said even if Budhram is sentenced in the near future or changes lawyers and becomes a former client, rather than a current client, a potential conflict will still exist because Bergendhal owes a continuing duty of loyalty to a former client to not disclose or use to his current client’s advantage any information learned from the former client during the course of that representation. And given the fact that Budhram may have been Khan’s co-conspirator, Campbell said, she may consider being a cooperating witness. “If so, Mr Bergendahl would be in the position of counseling one client whether to testify against another which would give rise to an actual conflict.”
Budhram and her husband Arnold have pleaded guilty to money laundering charges in New York and are currently awaiting sentencing. As part of their plea agreement, the Budhrams forfeited over US$400,000. They were arrested and charged with money laundering on April 6, 2004 and investigators searched their home and offices and gathered a large amount of evidence. They were granted US$5 million bail each on the charges and were subsequently released under electronic monitoring and they were not allowed to leave their home without permission, except to go to work.
Arnold Budhram, a bank vice-president and his wife Sabrina, a radiology technician, used a company they had set up and their connections to launder money for drug traffickers operating in Guyana. Sabrina Budhram is the sister of Peter Morgan, who is now facing drug charges in New York, after he was extradited from Trinidad. Records showed that in at least one case the couple transferred funds in his name.
