Lawyers seek acquittal, new trial for human smugglers convicted after family died at Manitoba-U.S. border
Lawyers for two men convicted of human smuggling charges by a Minnesota jury after a family from India froze to death in Manitoba while trying to walk across the Canada-U.S. border in 2022 are asking for their clients to either be acquitted in the case or get a new trial.
Harshkumar Patel and Steve Shand’s attorneys made those arguments in separate motions filed in United States District Court in Minnesota on Friday.
Patel, an Indian national arrested in Chicago, and Shand of Florida were each found guilty on all four counts they faced related to bringing unauthorized people into the U.S., transporting them and profiting from it after a trial in Fergus Falls, Minn., in November.
That trial came almost three years after four members of the Patel family (who were not related to Harshkumar Patel) died while trying to walk across the border.
The frozen bodies of Jagdish Patel, 39, his wife, Vaishali, 37, their 11-year-old daughter, Vihangi, and their three-year-old son, Dharmik, were found in a snow-drifted Manitoba field about 12 metres from the U.S. border on Jan. 19, 2022.
The temperature that day was –23 C, but the wind chill made it feel like the –35 to –38 range.
Shand was arrested near the border around the same time with other Indian nationals in the van he was driving. Harshkumar Patel, who prosecutors said co-ordinated the smuggling and hired Shand, was arrested in Chicago in February 2024.
Patel’s lawyers argued he was wrongfully accused in the case, while Shand’s described their client as an unsuspecting cab driver duped by Patel into shuttling migrants into the U.S. after they walked across the international border illegally.
Patel’s lawyers argued in their motion for acquittal that their client was convicted “as a result of errors committed by this court which prejudiced the defendant,” and called the evidence presented to the jury “woefully deficient.”
The motion argues Patel is entitled to the acquittals under a federal criminal procedure rule “because the government failed to present sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt” that he did what was alleged.
WATCH | 2 men found guilty in human smuggling trial after family died near Manitoba-U.S. border:
A Minnesota jury has found two men guilty on all charges related to human smuggling. The ruling comes after a family from India froze to death in Manitoba while trying to walk across the Canada-U. S. border. Steve Shand and Harshkumar Patel have each been convicted on four counts, including conspiracy to bring aliens into the U.S.
Patel’s lawyers argue there was no evidence presented that Patel was involved in a conspiracy with Shand or anyone else, that he knew the people being transported were “aliens,” that he knew they were entering the U.S. outside a designated point of entry or that he knew those people were in the country illegally.
They say prosecutors also failed to prove Patel was the person saved in Shand’s phone as “Dirty Harry,” who Shand was in contact with during the time of the smuggling scheme.
New trial needed: lawyers
Patel’s lawyers also filed a motion requesting a new trial in the event the court refuses to acquit him, “in light of errors committed at trial and in the interest of justice.”
That motion argues a new trial is needed in part because the court “incorrectly denied” Patel’s earlier motion for his trial to be severed from Shand’s — something Patel’s defence said was needed because Shand’s entire defence argument rested on pointing the finger at his co-accused.
“Because of the defence strategy of his co-defendant, defendant Patel was forced to face two parties trying to establish his guilt — the government and co-defendant,” the motion says.
Patel’s lawyers also argued prosecutors’ late disclosure of 2019 disciplinary action against a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol intelligence agent who testified as a witness for the prosecution impeded Patel’s right to a fair trial.
That disclosure came just before jury deliberations in the trial, and after both sides had rested their cases — meaning the defence didn’t have a chance to cross-examine the agent about how that record affected his credibility.
Patel’s lawyers’ motion for a new trial says their client also “joins in all arguments made by his co-defendant Steven Shand in Shand’s motion for a new trial.”
Shand’s lawyers’ motion focuses largely on the prosecution’s delay in disclosing the witness agent’s disciplinary record, arguing they had ample opportunity to collect evidence and investigate the case given how much time passed from Shand’s arrest to his trial, yet failed to disclose the information on time.
That motion alleges the U.S. Attorney’s office has effectively “instituted a policy” of not asking for such materials “until the eve of a witness’ testimony in a calculated deliberate attempt to remain blind to bad acts” and potentially exculpatory evidence.
As a result, Shand’s motion also requests an evidentiary hearing “so that a public record can [be] made” of the government’s approach to collecting those kinds of materials, or “at the very least” to establish a record of how that approach affected Shand and ensure there is no further outstanding material in his case.
The motion argues “the evidence presented at trial, even viewed in the light most favourable to the government or the jury verdict, does not support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to any count.”
After their convictions in November, sentencing dates for both men were tentatively set for March.
