Brief filed : 03/30/2012
Documents
Indictment (Dec. 11, 2009)
Superseding Indictment of Daniel Alvirez (March 5, 2010)
Superseding Indictment (April 16, 2010)
Defendants’ Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing for the Purpose of Obtaining Exculpatory Evidence (Dec. 7, 2010)
Government’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing for the Purpose of Obtaining Exculpatory Evidence (Dec. 21, 2010)
Statement of Offense for Daniel Alvirez (March 1, 2011)
Plea Agreement for Daniel Alvirez (March 1, 2011)
Statement of Offense for Jonathan M. Spiller (March 29, 2011)
Plea Agreement for Jonathan M. Spiller (March 29, 2011)
Statement of Offense for Haim Geri (April 28, 2011)
Plea Agreement for Haim Geri (April 28, 2011)
Government’s Reply to Defendant Patel’s Opposition to Government’s Motions In Limine (May 14, 2011)
Government Notice Regarding Amended Discovery and Filter Team Procedures (Aug. 24, 2011)
Defendants’ Motion for Mistrial (Jan. 2, 2012)
Government’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Mistrial (Jan. 4, 2012)
Government’s Supplemental Proposed Jury Instructions (Jan. 8, 2012)
Motion to Dismiss Counts 1, 2, & 44 in the Superseding Indictment (Jan. 20, 2012)
Government’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice the Superseding Indictment with Prejudice All Remaining Defendants Pending Trial (Feb. 21, 2012)
Order Dismissing the Indictments with Prejudice for Amaro Goncalvez and 15 Co-Defendants (Feb. 24, 2012)
Government’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice the Superseding Indictment for Spiller, Geri and Alvirez (March 27, 2012)
Order Dismissing the Indictment and Vacating the Plea Agreement of Jonathan M. Spiller (March 30, 2012)
Order Dismissing the Indictment and Vacating the Plea Agreement of Haim Geri (March 30, 2012)
Order Dismissing the Indictment and Vacating the Plea Agreement of Daniel Alvirez (March 30, 2012)
United States v. Amaro Goncalves, et al.
D.D.C.;
Case No. 1:09-CR-00335-RJL
Argument(s)
The Goncalves case, often referred to as the Africa gun sting case, involved an undercover sting operation executed by the FBI in 2010 at a Las Vegas gun show called the Shot Show convention. Specifically, the FBI created a fictitious deal to outfit the presidential guard of a small African country with weapons and security gear that included a $1.5 million bribe to that nation’s defense minister. Ultimately, the FBI arrested and charged 22 men and women, all in the military and law enforcement equipment industry, for allegedly participating in a conspiracy to bribe the defense minister of Gabon, and therefore violate the FCPA. Three of those charged pled guilty to conspiracy charges, but several others took their case to the jury at two separate trials.
At trial, the defense argued that the deal on its face appeared legitimate and that there was no conspiracy to violate the FCPA by the defendants. Further, the defense presented evidence that the informant and agents were vague in describing the illicit payments and that they never referred to them as bribes or kickbacks. The first trial, involving four defendants, took place in the District Court for the District of Columbia in July 2011. After more than six days of deliberations, that trial resulted in a hung jury. The second trial of six others lasted four months, ending in January 2012, and resulted in three acquittals and a hung jury for the remaining defendants. The Department of Justice finally dismissed the charges against the remaining defendants in February 2012. When granting DOJ’s motion to dismiss, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon described this prosecution as a “long and sad chapter in the annals of white collar criminal enforcement.” He further stated, “I, for one, hope this very long, and I’m sure expensive, ordeal will be a true learning experience for both the Department and the FBI.” In March 2012, the government also dismissed the charges against those three defendants who had pled guilty and were awaiting sentencing.
More documents from DOJ
News
"Feds Drop Case Against Final Africa Sting Defendants ," The FCPA Blog , March 27, 2012.
"At DOJ’s Request, Judge Dismisses FCPA Sting Case ," The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes , February 21, 2012. [Additional coverage ]
“DOJ Considers Abandoning Its FCPA Sting Prosecution ,” The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes , February 7, 2012. [Commentary from trial’s Jury Foreman ]
“Federal jury deals setback to large Justice Department sting operation ,” The Washington Post , January 31, 2012. [Additional coverage and analysis ]
"In FCPA Sting Case, Prosecutors Revise Discovery Process ," The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes , August 25, 2011.
"FCPA Attorneys Gear up for Round Two in Gabon Bribery Case ," The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes , August 18, 2011.
"Mistrial Declared in FCPA Sting Case ," The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes , July 7, 2011.
Featured Products
Exposing Lies and False Testimony in Criminal Trials
When a case hinges on credibility, the lawyer who can expose a lie controls the outcome. This program delivers a courtroom-ready system to detect deception, dismantle false testimony, and turn credibility attacks into acquittals or favorable pleas. Learn research-backed methods to spot dishonesty in interviews, build an impeachment toolkit under the rules of evidence, and craft narratives that reveal bias, motive, and contradictions—arming you to challenge police, experts, informants, and eyewitnesses with precision.
Pozner's Little Red Book: Lessons in Advanced Cross-Examination
This compact handbook brings together over 20 of Larry Pozner’s most powerful cross-examination articles, covering core principles and advanced strategies for witness control, impeachment, chaptering, and framing reasonable doubt. Packed with scripting examples, real-world scenarios, and tactical insight, it shows how to press or pivot with purpose, drop weak points, and keep cross disciplined. Whether dismantling an officer’s account, challenging an eyewitness, or exposing investigative gaps, Pozner’s field manual delivers courtroom-ready tools to win.
Objections That Stick! How to Exclude, Preserve, and Persuade
If you’re not objecting, you might be conceding—learn how to stop giving ground.
This program delivers practical strategies for making effective objections in criminal trials, especially drug cases. Learn how to challenge hearsay, 404(b) evidence, improper opinions, and prejudicial testimony. You’ll get objection language, methods for preserving error, and tactics for handling misconduct in closing arguments. With real-world examples and trial-tested tools, this program helps defense attorneys sharpen courtroom advocacy and protect the record for appeal.
Combating the "Rape Myth" Expert: Excluding & Diffusing Expert Testimony
When the prosecution uses a “rape myth” expert to sway the jury, do you know how to stop them—and turn their science against them?
This program, based on a real trial, gives defense attorneys a practical roadmap to challenge and exclude biased psychological testimony. You’ll get sample voir dire, motion language, Daubert strategies, and tips for exposing flawed methodology and narrowing testimony. Whether you're aiming to exclude the expert or limit their impact, this session equips you with the tools to protect your client and assert control in the courtroom.
Pattern Cross-Examination for Digital Forensic Experts
This guide provides ready-to-use cross-examination questions, categorized by artifact type and case theme—from cell phone towers to deleted texts to smart devices and cloud forensics. Whether you’re handling a case involving child exploitation, stalking, or online fraud, this book delivers practical patterns designed to highlight sloppy forensics, bias, tool limitations, and assumptions of intent or identity. Defense attorneys don’t need a computer science degree—they need strategy, control, and the right questions to challenge the illusion of digital certainty in court.
Using Chat GPT in Criminal Cases - Writing Better Prompts
Want a motion written in plain language but grounded in Tennessee case law? Need a summary of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence with primary and secondary citations? This is where you learn how to get that—on demand, and with far less editing. This training is designed specifically for attorneys—busy professionals who need fast, accurate, and case-relevant AI support. Whether you’re drafting motions, brainstorming legal strategy, summarizing complex case law, or preparing cross-examinations, the quality of your AI output comes down to one thing: how you ask for it.
Alcohol, Blackouts and Consent in Sex Cases
This comprehensive training program provides defense attorneys with a rigorous, science-backed approach to dismantling prosecutorial narratives, exposing unreliable testimony, and ensuring that juries are properly educated on the complexities of memory, intoxication, and consent. You'll explores critical mistakes and misconceptions encountered in these cases, including errors in memory reconstruction after an event, incorrect inferences, cognitive schemas, suggestibility, contamination and misinformation, mistakes of fact and more.
Overcoming the Presumption of Guilt and Defining Reasonable Doubt
Reasonable Doubt, what is it?
In order to win criminal cases, the defense practitioner must object to a reasonable doubt standard that lowers the burden of guilt. This program will discuss proven methods to argue and define reasonable doubt persuasively to a jury. You’ll learn how define reasonable doubt using metaphors and hypothetical scenarios that force juries to dispute the evidence, conflicts in the evidence, or even lack of evidence in your case.
The DIY of DNA: Exoneration Through DNA Evidence
This presentation might be the first time you’re truly able to truly grasp the fundamentals of DNA evidence. This critical presentation blends real-world storytelling with clear, practical instruction—making DNA evidence finally feel accessible, even to non-scientists—while inspiring attorneys to dig deeper, ask smarter questions, and approach forensic science with newfound confidence. You’ll learn how to identify and interpret electropherograms, understand autosomal vs. Y-STR testing, and recognize the limits of DNA evidence—particularly when it involves partial or mixed samples.
