Denny Walsh's front-page story in today's Sacramento Bee, highlights the testimony of the two defendants who testified at trial:
For two weeks now, the cavernous ceremonial courtroom atop Sacramento's federal courthouse has echoed with the denials of two attorneys fighting for their livelihood.
While their stories are somewhat different, the basic message to the jury was the same: They had no part in orchestrating scores of fraudulent asylum claims alleged to have been submitted by their firm to immigration authorities.
* * *
The trial, culminating one of the most ambitious asylum fraud prosecutions ever undertaken, is being closely watched by the immigration bar across the country. Many of the accusations stem from the way the Sekhon firm prepared applicants for under-oath interviews by asylum officers and immigration judges.
But they are accepted methods in asylum law practice and not much different from ones used by attorneys generally, Jagdip Sekhontestified. He and [Manjit] Rai insisted they did not fabricate scenarios, but did drill clients on how best to present their stories and what types of questions to expect.
An asylum lawyer has "no legal obligation to investigate, unless he suspects the applicant is lying," Sekhon said. "A lot turns on his or her honesty."