attorney

CRAIG N. MOORE

Address: **** ******** ****, #*** *****: 703-***-****

Alexandria, VA 22302 E-Mail: ******************.***@*****.*** Employment:

Aug. 2008 - Present The Moore Law Offices, Washington, DC Criminal trials and appeals

Sept. 2005 - July 2008 U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern Mariana Islands Assistant U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division

Jan. 1987 - Sept. 2005 U.S. Attorney’s Office, Rhode Island Assistant U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division

• United States Attorney from August 2003 - August 2004

• 1st Assistant US Attorney from February 1995 - Jan. 2005

• Chief of the Criminal Division from February 1995 - Jan. 2005 Mar. 1983 - Jan. 1987 U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC Assistant U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division (Superior Court) 1977 - 1983 Associate at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; Carr, Jordan, Coyne & Savits; and Schwalb, Donnenfeld, Bray & Silbert. Teaching Experience:

1989 - 1996 U.S. Department of Justice National Advocacy Center 1989 - 1990 National Institute of Trial Advocacy, Southeast Region 1988 - 1996 Boston University Law School, Legal Research & Writing Bar Admissions:

District of Columbia Bar U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Education:

University of Virginia Law School J.D., 1977

Georgetown University A.B., 1974

Honors: Phi Beta Kappa Athletics: Varsity Swimming Pi Sigma Alpha (Political Science Honors) Captain (1973-74) Phi Alpha Theta (History Honors)

Personal: Interests include Civil War, History, Reading, Writing, Swimming, and Scuba Diving CRAIG N. MOORE

CAREER SUMMARY

I have been an attorney for nearly forty (40) years with substantial experience in the investigation, litigation, and trial of criminal cases. I was a federal prosecutor for twenty-five (25) years and accomplished, literally, everything one can accomplish in an Office of the United States Attorney. The bulk of my experience there involved work on the investigation and prosecution of complex criminal frauds and public corruption offenses. I was also the principal manager of that office for ten (10) years, serving as the chief of its criminal division, the First Assistant U.S. Attorney (the number two person in the office), and for one (1) year as the United States Attorney. For eight (8) years, I was an adjunct Legal Research & Writing Instructor at a nationally ranked law school, I have taught numerous courses over the years in trial advocacy as well as criminal practice and procedure, and have also worked in highly regarded law firms large, medium, and small in Washington, D.C. For several years now, I have had my own practice in the District of Columbia, concentrating on criminal defense and appellate litigation on behalf of indigent defendants.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

THE MOORE LAW OFFICES

Since August 2008, after retiring from the U.S. Department of Justice, I have been engaged in criminal defense work at the trial and appellate levels of the courts for the District of Columbia. Below, I have listed some of the more significant cases representative of my work in the trial court during the past few years:

1. United States v. Tyrale Johnson, 15-CF1-15121 (D.C. Superior Court) This was a three (3) co-defendant homicide case. Two (2) of the defendants including my client were charged with having committed a revenge killing for the earlier murder of one of their friends; the third co-defendant was charged as an accessory after the fact for helping carry away the weapons used in the homicide.

At the outset, the evidence seemed fairly straightforward and the case against my client fairly weak. Basically, witnesses said they saw three (3) or four (4) young men at the corner of an apartment building about one hundred fifty (150) feet from a group of people talking in the apartment courtyard. One of the men described as a skinny, dark-complexioned black male, with long dreads lifted a long gun to his shoulder and started firing. A second man described as a shorter, dark-complexioned black male drew a handgun and also started shooting. One person in the courtyard was killed by a semi-automatic assault-type rifle bullet. When the shooting stopped, the young men with the guns ran away. A few of the witnesses claimed to know and identify the person who shot the rifle. Only one (1) witness claimed to see my client. Only one (1) witness, however, claimed to see and identify my client. She was a heroin addict, who had taken drugs just a half hour before the shooting, did not know my client’s name or nickname despite saying that she had known him for years from around the neighborhood, and 2

CRAIG N. MOORE

admitted that she did not like him because he had on one (1) occasion insulted her. She had selected him from a photo array three (3) weeks after the shooting. She said that when the shooter fired the assault rifle, the recoil had caused him to lose his balance. She further said that my client then stood behind the shooter and, placing his hands on the shooter’s back, steadied the shooter as he continued firing the weapon.

The case did not go to trial. The significance of the case came about because what occurred immediately before the trial. In what the government was proudly going to claim was an early voluminous production of Jencks material, I discovered a wealth of undisclosed Brady information, as did counsel for the co-defendant alleged to have shot the rifle. Ten (10) days before trial, we received more that nine thousand (9,000) pages of documents, grand jury transcripts, police reports, and witness statements, together with about twenty-five (25) hours of video recordings of various sorts. Neither I nor my co-counsel was able to complete reviewing it all before we had both filed motions to dismiss the case for Brady violations, followed by supplemental motions based on additional discoveries that we made during three (3) days of hearings. On day one (1), the government indignantly opposed the motions until the court paused the arguments and said it would give the government until the next afternoon to respond in writing. On day two (2) and in writing the government conceded that all of the material we had identified was, in fact, Brady and the government should have disclosed it earlier. One (1) year earlier to be exact. But its failure to do so had been inadvertent and the result of being overworked and understaffed and a variety of other innocent circumstances but certainly not any bad faith. On day three (3), the government voluntarily dismissed the case. 2. United States v. Raphael Ward, 15-CF2-14788 (D.C. Superior Court) The jury in this case returned a not guilty verdict on all counts. The charge was unlawful possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon. The prior conviction was for an armed robbery when my client, now 26, was 17 years old. Because the prior conviction was for a crime of violence, the current offense carried a mandatory minimum penalty of three (3) years in prison. To start, a unit of several police cars drove into a block where a group of young people were on both sides of the street and on the sidewalks socializing on a warm October night around midnight. As the police entered the block, people began to move away from where the police cars stopped and officers got out. One officer in particular testified that he began to focus on a single car about half way down the street from which, he said, he heard loud music playing. As he moved alongside parked cars, he saw my client standing at the rear of that car, near the trunk. He saw no one else around that car. The car’s doors were locked, its windows up, and its engine running. Music from the car could be heard through an open sunroof.

Approaching my client, the officer asked him and two (2) women he was talking with whether they knew who the car belonged to. They all said they did not know and, as the officer started back to the car to look inside, my client began walking away. Moments later, using his flashlight, the officer saw a handgun on the passenger side floorboard. The officer looked up and saw my client glancing over his shoulder, turning the corner on to another street. The officer told a fellow policeman they needed to find the owner and, giving a description, immediately told that other officer to stop my client. It was only 3

CRAIG N. MOORE

after officers had returned my client to the scene after chasing him that the police initiated any steps to determine the registered owner of the car. They opened the car without a warrant, searched the passenger compartment, and recovered the gun. Other evidence readily suggested that other people had access to the car and that someone other than my client had entered the passenger side of the car as the police entered the block.

The court readily agreed that the police had no basis to stop my client but concluded that the illegal seizure had not tainted any evidence. Among other things, I argued that, while the lead officer’s identification of my client might not be suppressible under traditional 4th Amendment analysis, this case was different. It was more akin to a traffic stop in which the police conducted a warrantless search of a stationary vehicle, with only the registered owner in custody, and without any evidence of a particular person much less my client having been an occupant of the car at the time the police discovered the weapon. In fact, by the officer’s own testimony, the police had never seen my client go into the car at all. In short, without his seizure, the police would have done what they usually do tow the car, get a warrant, and search it later. The court denied the motion. The jury acquitted, properly in my view and, in all likelihood, based on my client’s own testimony and the lead officer’s credibility or lack of it concerning several important details.

3. United States v. Tyshawn Watts, 16-CF3-8144 (D.C. Superior Court) This case is a perfect example of one the public never sees, assumes never occurs, and needs to be reminded of at every opportunity. The grand jury charged him with kidnapping and robbery based on allegations that he had pulled the victim from a bus and dragged him to a city sidewalk in an assault captured on a very clear video. The physical “seizure” during a violent crime fell within the jurisdiction’s draconian kidnapping statute. The robbery stemmed from the victim’s uncorroborated claims that my client and two (2) others who joined him once they were on the street took money from the victim’s pockets during the assault. The one thing that was absolutely clear on even a single viewing of the video was that my client was not in it.

One might excuse a prosecutor for not recalling a defendants appearance, having seen him perhaps only once at arraignment, with no real need for a photo for comparison purposes. And a prosecutor might often, if too easily, rely on a detective for correctly identifying the person arrested as the person who is actually caught on video committing an offense. But what does a defense attorney do when the detective (who happened to be the lead officer in the Ward case) testifies in the grand jury that the client is the person he saw in the video? And the prosecutor insists the defendant should plead because the video is so clear? And the prosecutor does nothing when asked to provide a large arrest photo of the defendant taken within days of the offense, sees the defendant at trial looking much the same way, and can see without any doubt at all that it is not the person in the video? You do your job as hard as you can. You calm your client when a note comes back two (2) hours into deliberations that the jury is hung. You calmly reassure him again that juries mostly get it right when an hour later the jury acquits him. 4

CRAIG N. MOORE

4. United States v. Antoine Glover, 15-CF2-12965 (D.C. Superior Court) This case did not go to trial. It is one of the very few cases which the government dismissed based on pretrial discovery efforts as well as the poor judgment and cavalier attitude of the assigned prosecutor. My client was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon carrying a mandatory three (3) year prison sentence. Security at a public housing project had allegedly barred my client from the property in early 2015. In August, at the same property, District of Columbia police made an unrelated drug arrest during which the officers claimed that someone nearby one of the apartment buildings fired three (3) shots into the air. The police theorized that the person was trying to disrupt the officers’ effort to make the drug arrest. Police later investigated the shooting incident, reviewed a housing CCTV video, and with security claiming to recognize my client as the gunman, police obtained a warrant for his arrest. When security arrested him in connection with an alleged unlawful entry based on the barring notice, the government subsequently indicted him on the felon in possession of the firearm charge.

The problems began when the government provided discovery only for the unlawful entry and the CCTV video in connection with the gun charge. The first offense was a misdemeanor, the second a felony, and different prosecutors were handling each one. To obtain information the defense was entitled to required repeated discovery letters, three (3) status conferences, and numerous emails involving painful explanations about basic police reports and procedures. I also had to file two (2) motions to compel Brady information computer data from a device called Shotspotter, used by police departments across the country to record sounds of gunshots as they occur at specific dates, times, and locations showing that, here, no shots were reported as having been fired that day at that property at any time.

Pursuing the discovery process so vigorously produced that critical information and a host of other defects in the government’s evidence including the highly questionable manner and reliability of the security guard’s purported identification of my client. In the end, the government was left with no choice but to dismiss the case about a week before trial. 5. United States v. Rochell Chesson, No. 13-CF3-5541 (D.C. Superior Court) This was a case which affirmed for me again the need for a strong and vital defense bar. It was significant in that, if only to my own satisfaction and that of my client, it exposed what I believed to be a lack of integrity in the government’s decision to indict and prosecute the main charge in the case. My client was wanted on a parole warrant from Maryland and the DC police had gone to arrest him. When Mr. Chesson and his girlfriend came out of their house, he saw the police and ran. He had a gun in his pocket and started to rid himself of the weapon and its parts dropping one clip almost immediately, tossing a second in some bushes, and as he ran between two houses toward an alley in the rear, throwing the unloaded gun off to his right. He took one more step and a police lieutenant, who had just driven into the alley, saw him and immediately fired three (3) shots. Mr. Chesson just as immediately dropped to the ground. He remained there until he was handcuffed and arrested. 5

CRAIG N. MOORE

Mr. Chesson was guilty of a number of things, all of which he was willing to admit, indeed, plead guilty to without a trial. He would not admit, however, the one offense the government insisted on prosecuting

assault on a police officer while armed against the police officer who had shot at him. The lieutenant claimed the defendant still had his gun when he came within five (5) to ten (10) feet of the officer, that after ordering Mr. Chesson several times to drop it, and that the officer fired only when Mr. Chesson, pointing the gun directly into the officer’s face, had refused to do so. At trial, I used all the other officers to impeach and contradict the lieutenant. I used the crime scene evidence and recorded police communications to show that it could not possibly have happened the way the lieutenant had testified. And I used all of that same evidence to corroborate my client’s testimony that he had already dropped the unloaded gun on the ground twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) feet behind him when the lieutenant claimed my client was allegedly aiming at the officer. My client admitted the other offenses he was charged with. The jury found him not guilty as it should have of the assault while armed.

OFFICES of the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

From 1983 until 2008, I worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in 3 different districts the District of Columbia, the District of Rhode Island, and the District of the Northern Mariana Islands. For ten (10) years, in Rhode Island, I was Chief of the Criminal Division and 1st Assistant U.S. Attorney. From August 2003 to August 2004, I was the United States Attorney. It is both fair and entirely accurate to say that, in my career, I did everything one can do in a U.S. Attorney’s Office. As the principal manager of the Rhode Island US Attorney’s Office, I like to think I had more than a little something to do with bringing it into the 21st century. The office had 50 employees 25 attorneys and an equal number of support and administrative staff. Like many small and outlying districts, however, Rhode Island was something of a backwater even into the early 1990s. There was little in the way of oversight by supervisors, little in the way of quality control, little in the way of compliance with national “best practices,” or even certain policies for that matter. As the lead supervisor in the office, I began implementing standards that today are commonplace and routine or should be in any prosecutor’s office. At the time, they were not. Having remained in contact with people who are still in the Rhode Island office, I know that many of the practices, policies, and procedures I established are still part of the daily operation there. Among the changes I instituted were the following:

• devising a standard form of case or prosecution memo to be prepared by every prosecutor in every criminal case with all of the items one would expect to have in such a memo facts, law, elements of the offense, penalties, issues, problems, potential defenses, and the like, whether the case should be indicted and, if so, the indictment, drafted and ready for approval (or improvement or not);

• creating a standard and uniform method of docketing, based on a manual which I wrote and on which I conducted training for the support staff using a power point that I created; 6

CRAIG N. MOORE

the Department of Justice (DOJ) had begun using a new system and had spent two (2) days training the support staff in how to use it without any guidance on what to docket; when I wanted certain reports, I could not get them; speaking with some secretaries, I realized they were uninformed about what happened in court or what was necessary for the attorneys or a supervisor to know; I wrote an office manual, taught them what to docket, and the office still uses it as a guide for entries even with newer systems;

• bringing the office into compliance with DOJ requirements for collecting restitution and fines by reviewing the critiques of two (2) “failed” inspections conducted by DOJ examiners, recommended changes that prior supervisors had not implemented, interviewing the office staff responsible for the work, putting the necessary changes in place, bringing in DOJ people to help with the transition, and seeing an immediate turn- around read increase and success in the rate and amount of our collections (much to DOJ’s satisfaction); and

• having monthly office meetings in which deputy supervisors reported on the work of their divisions to the entire office, not that it necessarily increased productivity but it certainly gave the office a chance to get together as a whole, feel as though the supervisors were communicating what the office was doing, and provided a forum for questions about anything that the Assistants might have on their minds. As a prosecutor, of course, my primary job was to investigate and try cases. I continued to do some of that even while I was a supervisor though with a substantially reduced role. I have conducted grand jury investigations in, tried, or otherwise had responsibility for nearly every aspect of every kind of criminal case imaginable, from shoplifting to murder and from simple thefts to extraordinarily complex fraud and public corruption cases. I have researched, written, and argued appeals across an equally broad range of criminal cases and issues. As the US Attorney and First Assistant in Rhode Island, I was also very involved in numerous civil actions at the trial and appellate levels. That said, I have:

• tried hundreds of cases and, using a grand jury, investigated still hundreds more, involving offenses from shoplifting to murder and every other kind of federal offense one might imagine from simple immigration matters to complex fraud and public corruption cases;

• worked with countless witnesses and dozens of cooperating defendants;

• drafted, filed, and made arguments based on legal documents involved in nearly every conceivable judicial and administrative proceeding, at both the trial and appellate level, in both civil and criminal matters;

• worked with federal, state, and local agencies to resolve innumerable issues related to investigations, prosecutions, and jurisdictional conflicts; and 7

CRAIG N. MOORE

• made media appearances and presentations before an array of federal, state, and local panels, public forums, and community gatherings.

Among the most significant and complex cases in which I was directly involved or for which I was directly responsible in my career were:

1. United States v. Atalig, 502 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) A public official on the island of Rota falsified applications for aid payments to dozens of island residents after a Super Typhoon had struck the island. The funds were designated by FEMA to assist people whose primary means of livelihood farming had been devastated in the storm. Atalig falsified records to divert several hundred thousand dollars to friends and family members in the hope of getting their votes and support in an upcoming election. She was convicted. 2. United States v. Potter, 463 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2006). The CEO of a British company conspired with an American corporate subsidiary the Lincoln Park dog racing track and one of its officers to pay a bribe of four million dollars ($4,000,000.00) to the then- Speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives. In exchange, the defendants wanted legislative approval to increase the number of very lucrative video slot machines operated by the dog track. All three (3) defendants were convicted.

3. United States v. Cianci, 378 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2004). This case was the final prosecution in a long term public corruption investigation of the mayor of Providence, Rhode Island and other city officials. It was a RICO prosecution of the mayor, two (2) of his aides, and the owner of a building leased by the city. We successfully prosecuted a total of nine (9) defendants, including the mayor and his top deputy. 4. United States v. Christopher, 142 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 1998) and United States v. Reeder, 170 F.3d 93 (1st Cir. 1999).

Two (2) co-defendants gained control of two (2) insurance companies. One of the companies was the largest insurer in Rhode Island. The defendants looted them, the companies collapsed, and hundreds of people lost their jobs. Guaranty funds in three (3) states paid out more than one hundred million dollars

($100,000,000.00) in benefits that the insolvent companies could not cover. The underlying facts involved an enormously complex tangle of corporate and financial dealings and mis-dealings. The prosecution was complicated for many reasons, including that a lawyer central to carrying out the scheme had not been indicted, that the judge severed the defendants for trial, and that the jury in Reeder could not reach a verdict in the first trial against him. Ultimately, juries found both defendants guilty.

8

CRAIG N. MOORE

5. United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409 (1st Cir. 1994). This was a twelve (12) co-defendant bank fraud case in which eight (8) of the defendants went to trial. The principal defendant, a real estate developer, along with two (2) lawyers, several brokers, and prominent local businessmen, defrauded two (2) small lenders of more than twenty-million dollars

($20,000,000.00). All defendants were convicted.

LAW FIRMS

From1977 to 1983, I worked as an associate in three (3) law firms in Washington, D.C. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld; Carr, Jordan, Coyne & Savits; and Schwalb, Donnenfeld, Bray & Silbert. With the exception of a handful of pro bono criminal cases, my work at these firms was almost entirely in civil litigation, including Title VII cases, employment and labor disputes, professional malpractice lawsuits, contract and other commercial actions, as well as arbitration, and administrative hearings. I acquired extensive experience in discovery, motions practice, and a broad range of research and writing on a variety of topics. During my tenure at Schwalb, Donnenfeld, Bray & Silbert, I tried three (3) civil cases.

APPEALS

I have written and argued nearly one hundred (100) appeals. I have not taken the time to inventory them. I estimate, however, that my appellate practice has resulted in some thirty (30) opinions or so in which I was directly responsible for or played a major role in the appeal. Appellate work was also a significant part of my teaching experience.

TEACHING

I have extensive teaching experience. In particular, while at the United States Attorney’s Office for Rhode Island, I did a great deal of teaching.

• Between 1988 and 1996, I taught legal research and writing as an adjunct instructor at Boston University Law School, located on Commonwealth Avenue in Boston, Massachusetts. Professor Robert Volk was and still remains the director of that program. During that same time, I also served as an “appellate judge” in the separate, annual Boston University moot court competition.

• In 1989 and 1990, I was an instructor for the Southeast Region of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy. The program was held at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

• In addition, between 1989 and 1996, I also typically taught twice a year for the Department of Justice. I was part of an experienced faculty who regularly taught courtroom skills and lectured on trial advocacy, grand jury practice, white-collar prosecutions, and other criminal law topics important to federal prosecutors. Those courses used to be held at a couple of different locations in the District under the name of 9

CRAIG N. MOORE

the Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute until the entire program was moved to the National Advocacy Center in Columbia, SC.

• In 2002 and 2003, I also participated in programs at the University of Virginia Law School aimed at informing law students about careers in public service. Along with other UVA graduates, I served on panels that made presentations and answered questions about: 1) different positions in government which looked for and were willing to hire new attorneys or those with two (2) or three (3) years of experience; and 2) the many rewards and advantages of a legal career in public service. Since retiring from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, I have not continued teaching in the same way that I have done in the past. I have participated, however, as a judge in moot court programs for law students at UVA and for college students interested in attending law school. In 2009 - 2010, I served as an

“appellate judge” for the first year legal writing moot court program at UVA. In 2010, 2011, and 2013, I worked as a “trial judge” in the regional GAMTI moot court competition held in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. GAMTI is the Great American Moot Court Trial Invitational. It is hosted by UVA. Students from colleges and universities from across the country participate in mock trials in a competitive format until a national winner is chosen from regional finalists. PROFESSIONAL HONORS AND AWARDS

I received the Director’s Award from the Executive Office of U.S. Attorney’s (EOUSA) for exceptional work by an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the prosecution of United States v. Christopher, et al., 142 F.3d 46

(1st Cir. 1998). It is among the highest honors the Department of Justice can award to an attorney. Throughout the years, I also received Special Achievement Awards for trial, appellate, and administrative accomplishments from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia and Rhode Island.

PUBLIC SPEAKING, MEDIA RELATIONS, AND WORK IN OTHER ORGANIZATIONS I have spoken frequently to both school and civic groups. As U.S. Attorney, I was a panel member on a Cox Cable television program about the problem of gun violence in schools featuring a “town meeting” with affected students, discussions with them about causes, their roles and responsibilities, and possible solutions. It won a local Emmy award.

Every year twice a year for nearly twenty (20) years, I spoke at a local high school about the U.S. Attorney’s Office and its role in federal law enforcement. The appearances began the first year I had returned to Rhode Island and in the town I had returned to. Just before school ended, one student shot another in what was supposed to have been an “after school fist fight.” The victim survived but was thereafter left with only partial use of the left side of his body and forever after denied his first-choice career as a law enforcement officer.

10

CRAIG N. MOORE

I have spoken to numerous public interest groups and community organizations about a wide variety of topics, including anti-terrorism, the

Contact this candidate