Perjury, Mail Fraud, and Obstruction of Justice—Amr Mohsen Convicted

A federal jury in San Francisco has convicted Amr Mohsen, the former CEO of Aptix Corp., on charges of perjury, mail fraud, and obstruction of justice.^[1] The charges arose out of a patent dispute between Aptix, Mentor Graphics Corp. and Quickturn Design Systems.^[2]

The interesting aspect of Mr. Mohsen’s trial is that there is a second phase scheduled to begin on March 6; that trial “will consider the more serious charges against [Mr.] Mohsen: attempted witness tampering, solicitation to commit arson, and solicitation to commit murder.”^[3]

The indictment in the first phase of the trial alleged that “he fabricated an engineering notebook and backdated all of its entries” to support Aptix’s civil litigation.^[4] By doing so, he committed perjury during a sworn deposition, and attempted to obstruct justice by having the notebook introduced as evidence.^[5]

As that trial was originally scheduled to begin in March 2004, Mr. Mohsen was arrested by the FBI “as he apparently tried to flee the U.S. for the Cayman Islands.”^[6] In July 2004, a superseding indictment was filed alleging witness tampering, solicitation to commit arson, and solicitation to commit murder—the charges that comprise the second phase of his trial.^[7] According to an FBI affidavit, Mr. Mohsen allegedly “tried to negotiate with an FBI informant to have [Judge] Alsup murdered for $10,000.”^[8]

When a defendant is charged with a number of violations, Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter FRCrP] states that “[t]he court may order that separate cases be tried together as though brought in a single indictment or information if all offenses and all defendants could have been joined in a single indictment or information.” However, “if the joinder of offenses or defendants in an indictment, an information, or a consolidation for trial appears to prejudice a defendant to the government, the court may order separate trials of counts, sever the defendants’ trials, or provide any other relief that justice requires.”^[9] That is likely what has lead to two phases of Mr. Mohsen’s trial; the allegations of a scheme to solicit murder would likely taint a jury to be more willing to find him guilty of perjury, mail fraud, and obstruction of justice. Mr. Mohsen, of course, was found guilty nonetheless, but the idea behind joinder relief is to not unduly prejudice the defendant.

---

[1] Dylan McGrath, Jury Finds Mohsen Guilty of Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, EE Times, Feb. 28, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id,
[9] FRCrP 14(a).