Case 1:18-cr-00218-TSC Document 75 Filed 12/19/18 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MARIIA BUTINA, also known as
MARIA BUTINA,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Criminal Case: 18-218 (TSC)

Government’s Response to the Court’s December 17, 2018 Minute Order
The United States of America, by and through its attorney, the United States Attorney for
the District of Columbia, respectfully submits this memorandum in response to the Court’s
December 17, 2018 Minute Order directing that the parties may file submissions
“stating their positions on the continuance, modification, or vacating of the September 12, 2018
Order” pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c), ECF No. 31 (the “Order”). For the reasons set
forth below, and for any additional reasons as may be cited at a hearing on this matter, the
government respectfully requests that the Court direct that the Order remain in place during the
pendency of this case.
The Order directs the parties, potential witnesses, and their counsel to “refrain from making
statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice
to this case.” ECF No. 31 at 2. The Court issued this order “to safeguard the defendant’s right to a
fair trial, and to ensure that the court can seat a jury that has not been tainted by pretrial publicity.”
Id.
Although the defendant entered a plea of guilty on December 13, 2018, the reasoning
underlying the Order—safeguarding the right to a fair trial and ensuring the ability to seat an

 Case 1:18-cr-00218-TSC Document 75 Filed 12/19/18 Page 2 of 3

untainted jury—extends at least through sentencing. There are three main reasons that the
government requests that the Order remain in place: (1) until the defendant has been sentenced,
not all charges have been dismissed; (2) prior to sentencing, the standard for the defendant to
withdraw her guilty plea is lower than after sentencing; and (3) to the extent that the defendant’s
cooperation may lead to any other arrests, those potential defendants have the same right to a fair
trial that Ms. Butina does.
The government’s plea agreement with the defendant required her to enter a plea of guilty
to Count 1 of the indictment, which she did on December 13, 2018. The plea agreement also
requires the government to dismiss Count 2 at the time of sentencing, which has not yet occurred.
ECF No. 67 at 2. Count 2 is thus presently pending before the Court. Although the government
has no reason to expect that the defendant will breach the plea agreement, in the event she does,
the government “will be free from its obligations under [the plea] agreement,” and she will be
“subject to prosecution for any other crimes.” Id. at 9. In other words, there is a chance, however
small, that the government could proceed to trial on the indictment or some portion thereof. Given
that possibility, the Court’s desire to preserve a potential jury pool continues through sentencing.
Similarly, the defendant can withdraw her plea before sentencing if she demonstrates to
the Court that she has “a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(d)(2)(B). After sentencing, by contrast, the defendant’s guilty plea may not be withdrawn, and
it will only be set aside on direct appeal or collateral attack. R. 11(e). While the government again
has no reason to believe the defendant will attempt to withdraw her guilty plea prior to sentencing,
the Rule’s contemplation of that possibility counsels towards leaving the Order in place prior to
sentencing.

2

 Case 1:18-cr-00218-TSC Document 75 Filed 12/19/18 Page 3 of 3

The Court also has the duty to protect any potential future defendants’ rights to a fair trial.
As this Court noted in its Order, the Local Rules impose a restriction on dissemination of
information that will interfere with a fair trial in connection with “pending or imminent criminal
litigation.” LCrR 57.7(b)(1); ECF No. 31 at 1 (emphasis added). Keeping the Order in place
through sentencing would safeguard the rights of any potential defendants who may later be
charged in connection with this matter, especially if any other person is charged as a result of the
defendant’s cooperation.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, and any others as may be cited at a hearing on
this matter, the government requests that the Order remain in place.
Respectfully submitted,
JESSIE K. LIU
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
D.C. Bar Number 472845
By:___________/s/____________
ERIK M. KENERSON
THOMAS N. SAUNDERS
Assistant United States Attorneys
Ohio Bar Number 82960 (Kenerson)
N.Y. Bar Number 4876975 (Saunders)
555 Fourth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: 202-252-7201
Email: Erik.Kenerson@usdoj.gov
/s/_______________
WILLIAM A. MACKIE
Trial Attorney, National Security Division
N.C. Bar Number 13816
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: 202-233-2122
Email: Will.Mackie@usdoj.gov

3