A former Seymour lawyer convicted of laundering drug money last year is asking a federal judge to let him out of prison while he appeals the case.
The lawyer, Ralph Crozier, 63, is currently imprisoned at Fort Dix, NJ, serving a 30-month prison sentence on charges he agreed to hide $41,000 in drug money for a former client, Bruce Yazdzik.
Background
Federal agents raided Crozier’s office and arrested him on charges of conspiracy and attempted money laundering — the “washing” of drug money by pretending it came from legit business —in April 2013.
The raid came minutes after Crozier had taken $11,000 in cash from Yazdzik’s mother, who was wearing a wire, and had been given the money by DEA agents.
A jury took about a day to find Crozier guilty of both charges.
Click here to read stories about the trial.
Appeal
A 57-page appeal brief filed by Crozier’s lawyer, Michael Hillis, says Judge Janet C. Hall, who presided over the trial, made three errors in the case.
The document is posted below.
First, Hillis argues Judge Hall should have allowed Crozier to represent himself at trial as co-counsel along with Hillis.
Hillis also argues Judge Hall should have acquitted Crozier after federal prosecutors presented their case at trial.
“Prior to the start of trial, Mr. Crozier filed an appearance so that he could represent himself along with privately retained co-counsel,” Hillis wrote. “Mr. Crozier has been practicing law for over 40 years and has extensive trial experience. Mr. Crozier claimed that his unique trial experience was a compelling reason for allowing the hybrid representation.”
But Judge Hall ruled that Crozier could not represent himself because it would “confusing to the jury,” Hillis wrote.
That ruling, Hillis says, violated Crozier’s rights under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.
“Mr. Crozier’s extensive experience as a trial attorney is a compelling reason to allow him a hybrid representation,” Hillis wrote. “The trial court’s concern of jury confusion could have been limited or negated by limiting Mr. Crozier’s ability to cross-examine certain witnesses.”
Further, Hillis argues the government didn’t prove its case against Crozier.
“The government failed to prove that a conspiracy to conceal or hide proceeds from unlawful activity existed between Messrs. Crozier and Yazdzik and that Mr. Crozier possessed the specific intent to launder money,” the brief says. “The government also failed to prove that transaction was designed to hide or conceal the subject proceeds.”
The Valley Indy left a message at Hillis’ office Wednesday.
Court records indicate federal prosecutors have until Oct. 15 to file a reply to Hillis’ brief.
Thomas Carson, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, said Wednesday that federal prosecutors will file a motion in response to Crozier’s request to be released pending his appeal, but declined to comment further.
