Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
State motion in Lowell Barron case

State motion in Lowell Barron case

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7,087|Likes:
Published by pgattis7719
Prosecutors spelled out its understanding of the relationship between Lowell Barron and co-defendant Rhonda Jill Johnson as well as stating Barron routed money back to himself through Johnson.
Prosecutors spelled out its understanding of the relationship between Lowell Barron and co-defendant Rhonda Jill Johnson as well as stating Barron routed money back to himself through Johnson.

More info:

Published by: pgattis7719 on Sep 03, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/04/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN
THE CIRCUIT
COURT
OF
DEKALB
COUNTY.
ALABAMA
STATE
OF
ALABAMA,
)
VS.
))
)
CASE
NO. CC
2013-77))
LOWELL
RAY
BARRON,
)))
DEFENDANT.
)
STATE
OF
ALABAMA,
))
)
vs.)
CASE
NO.
CC
20t3-78
))
RHONDA
JILL
JOHNSON,
))
)
DEFENDANT.
)
STATE'S
RESPONSE
TO
COURT
ORDERAND
MOTION
FOR
LIMITED
DISCLOSURE
OF
MATERIAL
The
State
of
Alabama,
by
andthrough
Attorney
General
Luther
Strange,
submits
its
Response
to
this
Court'sAugust
21,
2013
Order
and
Motion
for
Limited
Disclosure
of
Material.
In
support
of
its
Motion,
theAttorney
General
states
as
follows:
ELECTRONICALLY FILED8/30/2013 3:13 PM28-CC-2013-000077.00CIRCUIT COURT OFDeKALB COUNTY, ALABAMAPAM SIMPSON, CLERK
 
1.
OnAugust
21,
2013,
this
Courtfound
that
"any
evidenceheld
by
theState
tending
the
show therelationship
fbetween
the
defendants]
was other
than
personal
is
exculpatory
in
nature"
andordered
the
State
to
"submitto
the
court
for
in
camerainspection
all
witness
statements
procured
by
the
State
in
connection
with
the
charges
against
the
defendants
obtained
both
before
andafter
the
indictment
was
returned."(Order,
at
p.
3).
2.
In
accordance
with
this
Order,
the
State
is
providingthefollowing
materials
to
the Court
for
in
camerainspection:
(a)
Copies
of
recorded
audio
interviews;(b)
Special
AgentTom
Coram'sinvestigative
notes
of
these
interviews;
(c)
Excerpts
of
certainGrand
Jury testimony;'
(d)
a
Summary
Memorandum,
which
sets
forth
a
synopsis
of
the
portions
of
the
interviews
and
testimony
regarding
the
relationship
between
Barron
and
Johnson;
and
(e)
a
Disclosure
Memorandum,
which
sets
forth
theinformation
discoverable
under
this
Court's
August
21"
Order.2
3.
The
State
moves
this
Court
tonot
disclosethematerials
listed
above
to
the
defendants
because
these
materials
donot
containexculpatory
evidence.
t
Although
the
Court's
Order
specifically
"reserve[d]
for
further
considerationthe
issue
relating
to
grand
jury
testimony",
the
State
has submitted
these
materials
for
theCourt's
in
camera
..ri"*
because
it
contains
informationsimilar
to
theinformation
contained
in
the
statements.
(Order,
atp.4).
2
B""u,rr"-the
Court
ordered
that
thematerials
be
submitted
for
in
camera
review,the
itemsdescribedhavenotbeen submitted
to
defense
counselpending
further
order
of
the
Court.At
the
time
of
this
filing,
the
Statesent
theitems
described
to
theCourt
by
Federal
Express,
next
business
day
delivery.
 
Alternatively,
the
State
requests
that
the
court
limit
disclosure
to
the
defense
of
only
theDisclosureMemorandum
and
not
disclose
the entire
interviews
andgrand
jury
transcripts.
4.
In
support
of
its
request,
the
State
asserts
that
(l)
Brady and
its
progenydo
not
apply
pre-trial;
and
(2)the submittedmaterials
are
notexculpatory.
As
such,
thematerialsshouldnot
be
disclosed
to
the
defense,
or,alternatively,
the
disclosure
should
limited
to
the
information
contained
in
the
DisclosureMemorandum.
5.
As
the
Stateargued
atthehearing on
this
issue,
"fn]eitherBrady
nor
Agurs
requires disclosure
of
exculpatory
evidence,
before
trial,
as
a
matter
of
course."Ex
parte Duncan,456
So.
2d
362,364
(Ala.
1984)
(emphasis
added);
see
alsoBates
v.
State,549
So.
2d
60I,609
(Ala.
Cr.
App.
1989)
("Furthermore,
the
rule
of
Brady
applies
only
in
situations
whichinvolve
discovery
after
trial
of
information
which
had
been
known
to
the
prosecution
but
unknown
to
the
defense.")
(internal
citations
and
quotations
omitted)
(emphasis
in
original).3
6.
Accordingly,
Brady
and
its
progeny have
no
application
to this
earlystage
of
litigation
and
the
State
moves
this
Court
to
not
disclose
the
submitted
3
The
practical
basis
for
thisruleis
based
on
the
fact
that
materiality
cannotbedetermined
until
the
end
oftrial.
See
United
Statesv.
Agurs,
427
U.S.
97,
ll2
(1976)
(statingthatthe
materiality
of
undisclosedevidence
"must
be
evaluated
in
the
context
of
the
entire
recort')
(ernphasis
added).And
evidencecannotbe
exculpatory
unless
it
is
alsomaterial.
See
Nicl<s,783
So.
2d
at
91
5.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->