<!--Rick Pfeiffer--><table width="234" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" background="http://static.cnhi.zope.net/flashpromo/niagaragazette/images/byline_234x60.jpg" height="60"><tr><td><div align="center"><font size="3" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By Rick Pfeiffer</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br /></font><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="mailto:rick.pfeiffer@niagara-gazette.com">rick.pfeiffer@niagara-gazette.com</a></font></div></td></tr></table>
In a pair of decisions, a U.S. Magistrate judge has recommended to deny a move by attorneys for suspended Falls police officer Ryan Warme to have several counts of a federal corruption indictment against him dismissed, but has sent his request for two separate trials to a U.S. District Court judge for a ruling.
Magistrate Hugh Scott rejected claims by Warme’s attorneys that some of the charges lodged against him were unconstitutional. At the same time, he concluded that a request for two separate trials, one on alleged sex crimes and another on gun and drug crimes be sent to Chief U.S. District Court Judge Richard Arcara for review.
Defense attorney Joel Daniels had argued to Scott that Warme needed to have two trials to protect his rights. Prosecutors told Scott that Warme should only get a single trial because all the charges against him are “bundled together.”
Warme is accused of violating the civil rights of three women by sexually assaulting or abusing them, using his position as a police officer to extort sexual favors from a Falls prostitute, conspiring to distribute both powdered and crack cocaine, committing federal firearms offenses and failing to arrest a known felon who was in possession of a weapon.
Daniels had asked Scott to recommend two trials because Warme wants to testify in his own defense on the sex crimes, but not on the drug and gun crimes.
“(Warme) says, ‘I am willing to testify in the sex cases, but I am asserting my Fifth Amendment right (against self incrimination) on the drugs and guns’,” Daniels said. “We believe the grounds are there and the law is on our side in this (judicial) district.”
In a one sentence ruling, Scott wrote that issue should be decided by Arcara, who would eventually try the case.
“Such motions are more appropriately heard and determined by the trial court,” Scott wrote. “Which is in the best position to rule on the issues presented.”
Warme’s defense team has also asked Scott to recommend dismissal three of the 11 counts in the federal indictment he faces. Among other claims, Daniels had argued that Warme could not be charged with a crime (under the Hobbs Act) that relates to obtaining “property” through extortion, when the “property” is an act of oral sex.
“The United States Supreme Court has ruled that property is ‘something you can exchange, transfer or sell,’ ” Daniels told Scott. “(Oral sex) is a completed act. There’s nothing left to transfer. This is not property.”
Scott, however, disagreed.
“Warme allegedly did receive something of value from Victim 4, notwithstanding the illegal nature of the service provided,” the magistrate wrote. “Theoretically, Warme could have transferred or sold the service to another (by forcing Victim 4 to perform the service for someone other than himself), but according to the indictment in this case, utilized the service for himself.”
“We will appeal and we will file our objections with Judge Arcara,” Daniels said after Scott’s recommendation was filed. Arcara has given Daniels until Oct. 15 to file his appeal.
