Posted to Jewish News on

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A judge has denied a motion for a new trial for a former kosher meatpacking plant executive convicted of financial fraud following an immigration raid on the Iowa plant.

Judge Denies New Trial for Rubashkin

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A judge has denied a motion for a new trial for a former kosher meatpacking plant executive convicted of financial fraud following an immigration raid on the Iowa plant.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge Linda Reade issued her ruling Wednesday, rejecting Sholom Rubashkin’s motion for a new trial.

Rubashkin was convicted on 86 federal financial fraud charges in 2009 and was sentenced to 27 years in prison and ordered to pay $27 million in restitution.

Rubashkin’s attorney argued new evidence showed Reade, who presided over the trial, participated in the planning of the 2008 raid at the Agriprocessors Inc. plant in Postville, Iowa, and could not be impartial.

Rubashkin’s attorney, Nathan Lewin, says the law clearly shows Reade is wrong and that he will appeal her ruling.

Related Articles

21 Comments

  • a yiddishe mamma

    duh, what did anyone expect from her. She is pure evil and cannot redeem herself. Had she granted the appeal she would have done something right, how can pure evil be do something good??
    I guess this is the process and now we go forth. May the next move prove to be a smashing success!!!
    He is in my prayers every erev Shabbos at Licht Benching and every trip to the Ohel. Hashem please answer our prayers!!!

  • ce

    these people (Reade) are just putting off the inevitable. I think they are really heading for big trouble, and they are possibly using the time to clean up their trail.
    No truth goes unpunished. Eventually it will all come out.

  • WHAT ?

    WHAT ? WHAT IS THIS ? THIS JUDGE READE IS STILL HERE ? WHY CANT THEY GO TO ANOTHER JUDGE ? READE HERSELF IS IN BIG BIG TROUBLE FOR WHAT SHE DID, WE SHOULD SEND HER TO JAIL FOR 35 YEARS. SHE SHOULD LOSE HER JOB NOW !!

  • Huh?

    How can the same judge who convicted him be allowed to rule whether or not he gets a new trial? That makes no sense!

  • His last chance

    The last hope would be a presidential pardon and unfortunately due to his long sentence that would be many years and presidents away.

  • Gedaliah Goodman

    I think Lewin made a big mistake in not sueing judge reade for
    obstuction of justice, defamation of character, etc. He should
    have done this along time ago. I would also include the prosecution
    in the suit. You cannot just defend, you MUST attack, in order to
    be effective. I hope someone who has a connection to Lewin will pass this on to him.

  • Milhouse

    #10, you read the article. Now that the trial judge has decided not to hold a new trial, that decision can and will be appealed. It’s not as if anyone expected her to decide otherwise, but until she decided there was nothing TO appeal.

  • An Attorney

    Justice Reade’s decision will be appealed to the Appellate Court. I am sure that is what the Attorneys expected to happen. Judges never like to admit they did something inappropriate, that is for the review court to decide. G-d willing, they will do the right thing.

  • A question, Milhouse

    Milhouse, for those of us laypeople who don’t know the process of appeals…please explain how this works. I assumed, as did apparently many, that the entire appeal process would go through some other judge and court than Linda Reade. I couldn’t believe it when I first heard that she makes the decision as to whether he gets a new trial. What judge would say yes unless there was new evidence (other than her own misconduct).
    So now, when I read that this decision will be appealed…I wonder…to whom? We laypeople assumed until now incorrectly, who knows, maybe now it goes to Reade’s husband!

  • Gedaliah Goodman

    #11 Milhouse
    The attorney I asked said that you CAN sue the prosecutors. If they were involved with the criminal investigation and messed it
    up, it is an easier suit, but difficult. The judge has immunity
    in almost all cases. If the proofs are so strong, and that is the
    difficult part, proving the acusations against the judge, then
    there are always exceptions to the rules.

  • Milhouse

    #15, it is absolutely standard that new evidence goes first to the trial judge. It was up to her to consider whether this warrants a new trial; until she did so, there was nothing to take to an appeals court. Now that she’s decided (as expected) that she did nothing wrong and the trial was fair, that decision can be taken to an appeals court.

  • Milhouse

    #16, both the judge and the prosecutors have absolute immunity. There is no such thing as defamation for court proceedings.

  • Gedaliah Goodman

    MILHOUSE #18
    Genally you are correct. I am not refering to sueing to overturn
    the judges decision, in that case you must appeal, but judges do
    not enjoy immunity from criminal liability. It is difficult & most
    laywers will not want to go that way. It has been done. In order to sue, you must follow the proper legal recourse, first filing
    complaints with both the attorney general & the judiciary committee. This is difficult & you must be persistent. The gov.
    has a book out with rules to follow in order to try to sue a federal judge, again it is not easy. Lewin sued the federal gov. in order to get the info, they did not want to give it to him. Sue
    them & let them try to defend their actions. You can look up cases
    of suits against judges. Although it is unresolved whether you can
    sue federal judicial officers, it has been done. Bivens V etc., etc. From what I read, this should be pursuant to Title 28 U.S. code 1331, in claims arising from violations of federal constitutional rights guaranteed in the ammendments to the U.S. constitution. It’s worth the effort. It beats sitting in prison & just appealing. He’s been there to long already. I am just trying to help, but HASHEM & MHM will help. Hatzlachah Rabbah.
    Shabbat Shalom

  • Milhouse

    #19, I don’t know who’s feeding you this information, but it’s nonsense. For one thing, you talk about “criminal liability”. Nobody can ever sue anybody for a crime! Crimes are prosecuted by the government, not sued for by private people. And judges cannot ever be sued for anything they do on the bench; they have absolute immunity. It’s not difficult to sue them, it’s impossible. The concept doesn’t exist.

    Bivens suits are to overcome qualified immunity, not absolute immunity. Bivens suits can be brought against policemen, not against judges or prosecutors. And in order to overcome a policeman’s qualified immunity, you must show that the conduct was not only illegal, but that he knew it to be illegal at the time, or that its illegality was so clear that he had a duty to have known it.

  • Gedaliah Godman

    Milhouse #20

    Lawyers have told me this. Some say yes, & some say no. I will try
    to get the book from the gov. From what I read, the book even tells
    you how to sue a judge without a lawyer. I quess they have to tell you that, because the lawyers don’t want to sue, so as not to have
    judges holding it against them. That is what a lawyer told me. They
    agree it is very difficult. Haman said it is impossible. Sorry SR.
    No Mordechai’s out there.