Associate Judge David A. Wiseman denied the motion of Munnaf Miah in an order dated Nov. 18.
Miah appeared in court represented by his lawyer Steve Woodruff while Assistant Attorney General Kathleen Busenkell appeared on behalf of the government.
A jury convicted Miah with solicitation to commit marriage fraud on May 23, 2008 but the jury acquitted him of conspiracy to commit marriage fraud.
On Oct. 19, Miah filed a corrected motion for judgment of acquittal, asking the court to enter a judgment of acquittal. The government opposed the motion.
Miah filed his motion on the grounds that it is legally impossible for him to have solicited Severene Kosam to commit the offense of marriage fraud; that the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the offense of solicitation; that the government did not prove every element of the offense because the government was never identified by any witness as the individual who committed the offense; and that the government presented evidence of entrapment then failed to show that he was predisposed to violate the law.
Wiseman stated that “the court shall order the entry of judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the information after the evidence on either side is closed if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offenses.”
Wiseman noted that “the offense of solicitation does not require the solicitee be legally capable of committing the solicited offense.”
The defendant argues that the government did not present sufficient evidence to show that the defendant solicited marriage fraud.
The government said the defendant misunderstood the law.
According to Wiseman, criminalizing solicitation is not intended to punish the solicited crime; rather it is to protect citizens from being exposed to inducement to commit or join in the commission of the crimes.
Wiseman said evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense of solicitation.
It is undisputed, he added, that the defendant was going to pay $1,000 to Kosam if she turned in the marriage application.
The defendant also offered to pay Kosam another $500 if he could obtain a green card, and he told Kosam that he needed to be married because his documents were about to expire.
The court said this testimony alone is a reasonable fact that could infer that the defendant encouraged Kosam to engage in acts that would result in marriage fraud.
Wiseman said the defendant cites his own self-serving statements as a proof of conflicting evidence requiring judgment of acquittal.
But the court said it is the duty of the jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and reach their conclusions.
The court found sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to identify the defendant as the individual who committed the charged offenses.
Wiseman said during trial, the defendant never raised the defense of an entrapment nor presented any evidence of inducement.
Where the facts are undisputed, he added, the court must rule on entrapment as a matter of law.
Miah was charged with three other defendants — Minto Minto, Maria Aurelio Ray and Saiful Islam for agreeing to arrange marriages between Islam and Alisilynn Mallens, and between Miah and Severene Kosam for the purpose of obtaining labor and immigration benefits in March 2007.
