govinfo:USCOURTS-nyed-1_20-cr-00502-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
---------------------------------------------------------- X  
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
    Plaintiff, 
 
- against - 
 
FAWAZ OULD AHMED OULD 
AHEMEID,  
 
    Defendant. 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND 
ORDER 
 
20-cr-502 (BMC) 
---------------------------------------------------------- X  
 
COGAN, District Judge. 
 
This is an international murder case.   Defendant stands already convicted and sentenced 
to death by a Malian court for the same conduct the Government is now prosecuting.  Earlier this 
year, the Government reopened (and has yet to close) the issue of whether it, too, will seek the 
death penalty.
1  Meanwhile, funding under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A 
(“CJA”), on which defense counsel relies, lapsed weeks ago, and the entire federal government is 
currently shut down.   
Nonetheless, the Government wants to proceed, full speed ahead.  The defense, on the 
other hand, believes its investigation has been stymied and, although counsel has been able to 
front the costs until now, proceeding further would be untenable. Counsel has made a strong 
showing that they are simply tapped out.   
 
1 The Government’s decision to revisit its no-seek decision apparently stems from a “nationwide directive from 
Attorney General Pamela Bondi to review every decision not to seek the death penalty made under the prior 
administration.”  United States v. Suarez, No. 24-cr-0226, 2025 WL 2710094, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2025).  The 
Court notes, however, that every case to address the issue has stricken the subsequently filed notice of intent to seek 
the death penalty.   See, e.g., United States v. Constanza-Galdomez, 787 F. Supp. 3d 131, 141 (D. Md. 2025); 
United States v. Spurlock, 782 F.Supp.3d 987 (D.Nev. 2025); United States v. Merrell, No. 20-cr-046-1, 2025 WL 
2911170 (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 7, 2025); United States v. Dangleben, 23-cr-0072, 2025 WL 2647195 (D.V.I. Sept. 15, 
2025); United States v. Cole, 23-cr-0016, 2025 WL 2592515 (D.V.I. Sept. 7, 2025); Suarez, supra. 
Case 1:20-cr-00502-BMC-JRC     Document 145     Filed 11/07/25     Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
Although the Constitution demands more for a capital defendant because “death is 
different”, see Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 994 (1991), the Sixth Amendment has never 
demanded that an attorney work without compensation and personally shoulder the costs 
associated with providing a defense.  But that is exactly what defense counsel has been doing 
here for months.  Each of defendant’s attorneys is a solo practitioner with little or no source of 
funding outside of the CJA and, as expected, this is not the only case for which counsel has been 
shouldering the costs.  Because of the lapse, defendant’s attorneys have personally fronted 
several hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs that have been “deferred indefinitely.”   
 The funding lapse warrants the partial stay that defendant seeks.  Accordingly, the 
deadline for defendant’s Rule 12(b)(3)(A)(ii)-(iii) and 12(b)(3)(C) motions, and trial, are stayed 
until CJA funding has been restored and all deferred funds have been dispersed.  The Court will 
thereafter schedule a conference to determine whether and to what extent the stay must be 
extended to account for the Government’s death penalty decision and completion of defense 
counsel’s investigation.  
 
SO ORDERED. 
 
 
       ___________________________________ 
                              U.S.D.J.   
 
Dated: Brooklyn, New York 
  November 7, 2025 
 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00502-BMC-JRC     Document 145     Filed 11/07/25     Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight