• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRIC OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. Plaintiff,GUY M. NEIGHBORS Case No. 07-20124-01-02-KHV/DJW Defendant,Notice of Motion Requesting aChange of Venue and to HaveBoth Prosecutors RecuesThemselves from Said Cases asTo Avoid the Appearance of A Conflict of Interest.Comes now Defendant Guy Neighbors pro-se, and asks the honorablecourt to change the venue of all the cases UNITED STATES V. GUY NEIGHBORS & CARRIE NEIGHBORS 20124-01-01, 07-20073-01/02 jwl/djw, 08-20105 jwl/jpo, from the State of Kansas to theState of Nebraska, and that the Prosecutors Marietta Parker andTerra Morehead Recuse themselves from the cases on the grounds
 
that the Defendants cannot receive a fair trial or be tried by animpartial prosecutor in the State of Kansas. Wherefore the defendants pray that the courts will grantthis request in the interest of Justice, and the defendants wouldrespectfully ask the honorable court to court to consider the specialcircumstances surrounding this case in that the prosecutor is now acting District Attorney for the District of Kansas and the defendantshave filed motions claiming prosecutorial misconduct, have exhibitsfrom other defendants that will show a pattern of abuse and saiddefendants have filed a complaint against the prosecutors under
42U.S.C. 1983 for Civil Rights Violations.
The prosecutor now has a vested interest in getting a conviction above andbeyond the interest of Justice. The defendants pray the court will entertainthis pro- se motion as to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest thatcould prejudice the defendants.
The 14
th
Amendment guarantees the fundamental rights of citizens todue process and such rights require the scrutiny of the Court. If theCourt decides that it has the right to deny the defendants due process by refusing to consider their pre- trial pro-se motions, then the Courtis failingto insure justice in this case. Alternatively if no change of  venue is granted, then the defendants ask for a dismissal of allcharges.Because a defendant has no constitutional right to hybridrepresentation, the decision to allow such representation lies within
 
the sound discretion of the trial court. This case merits such a needfor pro-se motions because the Prosecutors control over thedefendant’s attorneys have caused prejudice upon the defendants inthis case. Although many jurisdictions have refused to recognize a right of counseled defendants to exercise their 6
th
Amendment right to lendassistance of their counsel in their own defense, it is ultimately left tothe discretion of the trial court to determine whether suchparticipation is permitted (see, e.g., United States v Einfeldt, 138 F3d373, 378 [8th Cir], cert denied 525 US 851; United States v Tutino,883 F2d 1125, 1141 [2d Cir], cert denied 493 US 1081; United States v LaChance, 817 F2d 1491, 1498 [11th Cir], cert denied 484 US 928;United States v Mosely, 810 F2d 93, 97-98 [6th Cir], cert denied 484US 841; United States v Halbert, 640 F2d 1000, 1009 [9th Cir]; State v Frye, 224 Conn 253, 256, 617 A2d 1382, 1384-1385; State v Long,216 NJ Super 269 275-276, 523 A2d 672, 675-676).
While there may be circumstances where theunjustified refusal to entertain meritorious
 pro
 
se
motions would constitute an abuse of discretion, thatcircumstance does not apply when a defendantsConstitutional rights are jeopardized.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...