THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NORTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

.
THE UNITED STATED STATES OF AMERICA
(Plaintiff)

CASE No: 4:17CR-194-A

V.

DATON DEGNIDE
(Defendant)

------------------------------------------------------------- /

DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO THE GOVERNMENTS

AGREED CHARGE.

Pertaining to the Courts Order, in which Mr. Degnide submits his Objections to the

Agreed Charge. Mr. Degnide Respectively objects the Governments ask for leave

of the Court to submit supplemental jury instruction as to conform the evidence at

trial.

Respectfully submitted,

DATON DEGNIDE.

1
OBJECTIONS TO THE AREED CHARGE.

1) Mr. Dignide asserts, that he cannot agree as to the language to be used in the

Proposed Jury Instructions pertaining to the Governments Elements to be

used at Trial.

2). The Jury Instructions are intend to direct the jury into conception that Mr.

Dignide intended to distribute cocaine, and in furtherance of that

that distribution.

3). However the court lacks the jurisdiction to enter any Jury Instructions as to

Mr. Dignide. The Government, cannot demonstrate to c competent Jury that

Mr. Degnide intentions were to distribute any cocaine.

Below you will find the governments proposed Agreed Charge. (see Doc.
349 pg. 10).

Governments Elements.

a). First, beginning on or before September 2014 and continuing until in or

around August 2017, two or more persons, directly or indirectly, reached an
agreement to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute it.

b). Second, that defendant Dignide knew of the unlawful purpose of the
agreement.

2
c). Third, That the defendant Dignide joined in the agreement willfully, that is,
with intent to further its unlawful purpose.

d). Fourth, That the overall scope of the conspiracy involve a mixture and
substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine.

e). Fifth, That the defendant under consideration knew or reasonably should
have known that the scope of the conspiracy involved a mixture and
substance containing a detectable and amount of cocaine.

4). Mr. Dignide avers, that the First Element intended to be used above, is
ambiguous and inconsistent with the record. It asserts that the conspiracy
“began on or before September 2014 and continuing until in or around
August 2017”.

5). In actuality the record reflect, that only one agreement to purchase cocaine

had been initiated on or about April 2017 until his initial court appearance

on September 2017.

6). On the initial appearance of Mr.Degnide September 2017, Counsel for the

defendant at the time at hand, asked the government. (Agent Lodatto).

3
Counsel for Defendant:
“when did you first identify Mr. Degnide?”

Agent Lodatto
“I think we positively identified him in the last 30 days.

Counsel for the Defendant

“30 days from when exactly?”

Agent Lodatto
“ Today.

(see Document transcript of Proceedings before the honorable Jeffrey L Cureton)

(pg 44 line 16 -20).

7). In the above questions, and answers under the authority of the Court; It has

shown within the testimony of the agent (under oath), that the Government

just learned of the identity of Mr. Degnide at his initial appearance after his

arrest.

8). Thus, within any Government instrumentality, following a logical sense of

dejure governance under the rule of justice would recognize that such is a

violation of his Fourteenth Amendment at that very instance; overriding the

balances of the rule of law. (footnote 1)

[footnote 1]: An identity of a defendant accompanist the whole scope of information related to crime
(role, involvement, and physical relations)

4
9). Moreover, a prosecution is occurring simultaneously; while an Agent for the

Government has not positively identify a Defendant.

10). We recognizing Due Process as a clause to ensure that Rights are secure,

even for those who have been accused of crimes.

11). Secondly in the First Element to the Governments Agreed Charge. The

language in the above element needed to be proven asserts that Mr. Degnide

“reached an agreement to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute it”

(see Doc. 349 pg 10).

12). In actuality the government lacks the probability to make a reasonable jury

believe that 14 grams of cocaine agreed to purchase by Mr. Degnide

substantiated the element that he intended to distribute it. .

13). In Turner v United States 396 U.S. 398, 90 S. Ct.642,24L.Ed. 2d 610 (1970)

all nine Justices agreed that possession of 14.68 grams of cocaine and sugar

mixture was insufficient for concluding that the defendant was distributing

cocaine. Thus, would clarify that a small amount of narcotics, standing

alone is insufficient evidence of intent to distribute.

5
14). The language used in the above element does not support the variance of the

offence charged. The language describing the first element should read as

follows:

Proposed charge by the Defendant:

Beginning on or before April 2017 and continuing until in or around

September 2017, two or more persons, directly or indirectly, reached an
agreement for the defendant to purchase cocaine with the intent for personal
use.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The Third Element in the Governments Agreed Charge is ambiguous as well;

It reads as follows:

15). Governments Third Element: “That the defendant Dignide joined in the

agreement willfully, that is, with intent to further its unlawful purpose”.

16). Emphasis in the above proposed element creates an illusion, or false

perception in the minds of the Jury, that Mr. Dignide intentions were to

further a drug conspiratorial enterprise of distribution.

17). In actuality Mr. Dignide Cannot intentional, or financially support a

conspiracy with intent to distribute 14 grams of cocaine, and logically; with

a small amount, it is nearly impossible to further an agreed purchase to

distribute that 14 grams of unlawful personal use.

6
The language used in the Governments Third Element does not support the
variance of the offence charged. The language describing the Third Element
should read as follows:

Proposed charge by the Defendant.

Third Element: That the Defendant Degnide joined in the agreement willfully,
that is, with the intent to further his own personal use.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion:

1). Mr. Degnide contends, The language is ambiguous and misleading in a

presents of a Jury Instruction, as to the language asserting a conspiracy is a

kind of partnership an agreement of two or more persons to commit one or

more crimes without giving the ability to the jury to decide that the charge

must be companied by a purpose of an economical gain in order to meet the

requirements in the Governments First Element.

2). Government (Department of Justice) purpose are to regulate foreign and

interstate commerce in the terms of economic crime.

7
Definition of Economic Crime.

Any offense in which individuals or collectivities of peoples purposively act in an

illegal manner to gain “financial return”.

A reasonable Jury should hold the responsibility in weighing the whole scope of a

distribution charge. They should weigh in, on the probability through their own

knowledge to determine factually, whether Mr. Degnide would likely have the

financial capability, and the involvement not just the mere agreement to purchase

personal use of cocaine.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the

forgoing has been hand delivered to the United States District Attorney
US District Court Clerk 501 w 10th 310 Fort Worth 76102.
On this day of 2017.

Print Name:

Per Per /s /