IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V. CASE NUMBER: 07- 20124

CARRIE AND GUY NEIGHBORS

DEFENDANT’S JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Rules 401,

402 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, defendants Carrie and Guy Neighbors respectfully

move the Court for an Order in limine to exclude the following evidence from being presented at

trial:

A. Any evidence outside of the direct evidence associated with the sales or transactions

identified by specific dates in pages 3 thru 16 in the second superseding

indictment.

B. Any evidence of a transaction in which the government cannot show that the

transaction involved stolen property by producing evidence from the owner of

the property from which the same was allegedly stolen.

C. Any evidence relating to transactions outside of the time period listed in the

conspiracy in the second superseding indictment.

D. Any evidence regarding any blogging or internet communication not directly related

to the transactions specifically enumerated in pages 3 thru 16 in the second

superseding indictment.

E. Any statements given by Carrie Neighbors during her proffer.

 F. Any information regarding drugs or drug usage or drug manufacturing.

G. Any information regarding any allegations that the government intends to support

their allegations of obstruction as charged in Case 08-20105.

Carrie and Guy Neighbors would submit the following memorandum in support

their motion in limine.

INTRODUCTION

The defendants in this matter are charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire and

mail fraud and money laundering, 14 counts of wire fraud and four counts of money laundering. The

indictment alleges that the defendants operated a business out of Lawrence Kansas known as

“Yellow House” that utilized the internet to sell stolen merchandise. The illegal transactions are

alleged to have commenced as early as January 2004 and continued until July of 2006 according to

the conspiracy charge as set out in the second superseding indictment. The indictment includes

allegations of multiple specific instances of the purchase and/or sale of stolen merchandise or

money related thereto, including specific dates on which the transfers of merchandise or money

occurred.

Carrie and Guy Neighbors seek an Order of the Court to exclude certain testimony and

evidence that has no relevance to the charges in the Second Superseding Indictment. See Fed. R.

Evid. 401 and 402. Even if the government could establish some nominal degree of relevance, any

probative value would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the

Neighbors. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Therefore, an Order in limine excluding the evidence is

appropriate.
 ARGUMENT

A. The court should exclude any evidence outside of the direct evidence associated with

the sales or transactions identified by specific dates in paragraphs 3 thru 16 in the

second superseding indictment.

The second superseding indictment lists with particularity the dates of transactions of the

purchase of stolen property allegedly purchased by the defendants, the dates of the times the

defendants placed the allegedly stolen property on the internet for resale and the dates on

which certain money gained from said transactions was transferred by wire to accounts

owned or controlled by the defendants. The presentation of this evidence will take the

government several weeks at a minimum. The Lawrence Police Department in conjunction

with several other Federal agencies has been investigating the defendants and their

association with “Yellow House” for several years. During this investigatory process the

collective law enforcement agencies have prepared in excess of six thousand pages of

documents resulting from their investigation. Much of the investigatory process involves

facts not directly related to the transactions specified in the indictment.

Even if relevant, “evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury,

or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative

evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.

Presenting evidence outside of the scope of the transactions specified in the second

superseding indictment would be prejudicial to the defendants and confusing at best when

the jury begins to deliberate on this matter. Therefore, the evidence should be excluded at
 trial.

B. Any evidence of a transaction in which the government cannot show that the

transaction involved stolen property by producing evidence from the owner of the

property from which the same was allegedly stolen.

In the second superseding indictment there are listed numerous transactions wherein it is alleged

that Carrie and Guy Neighbors purchased property from different individuals “knowing that the

property had been stolen”.

In reviewing the documentation provided by the government it appears that the government

has not identified the specific owners of some of the property that was alleged to have been stolen.

Without the testimony of the owners of the property to affirm the property had in fact been stolen

there would be no evidence that the defendants had in fact been involved in a “scheme to defraud”

as set out in the second superseding indictment and further it would be impossible for the

government to prove that the defendants purchased property “knowing that the property had been

stolen” also as set out in the second superseding indictment. Therefore, such evidence should be

excluded.

C. Any evidence relating to transactions outside of the time period listed in the

conspiracy in the second superseding indictment.

As mentioned above, the investigation into “Yellow House” and the Neighbors has been on

going for several years and appears to have continued even after the period of time specified in

the conspiracy count of the second superseding indictment. To produce any evidence relating to

activity occurring outside of the time period listed in the indictment would have no relevance and

further would only serve to confuse the jury. Therefore, such evidence should be excluded.
D. Any evidence regarding any blogging or internet communication not directly related to

the transactions specified in paragraphs 3 thru 16 in the second superseding

indictment.

As the court is probably aware, a great deal of time and energy has been spent in this case

on the blogging done by one or both of the defendants. For reference see Doc. 65 that was filed

by the government seeking a revocation of the defendant’s pre trial release. The motion came

on for hearing on July 18 and 21, 2008 in front of the Honorable James O’Hara. The motion

primarily dealt with blogging by the defendants that had taken place after the defendants had

been charged in this matter. The blogging for the most part dealt with witnesses and attorneys

involved in the prosecution of the case against the defendants. To counsel’s knowledge, none

of the blogs involve any facts concerning the substantive allegations as set out in the second

superseding indictment. The blogging evidence is not relevant to the issues to be considered by

the jury. Even if the evidence was remotely relevant the presentation of the same would unfairly

prejudice the defendants and would be a “waste of time” as contemplated by Fed. R. Evid. 403.

Therefore, such evidence should be excluded.

E. Any statements given by Carrie Neighbors during her proffer.

On August 24, August 29th and September 6, 2006 Carrie Neighbors met with officers

investigating the underlying allegations against the defendants and “Yellow House”. This

meeting was set up as the result of discussions between the AUSA representing the

government in this matter and the attorney for the defendants at that time. Pursuant to a

“proffer letter” Carrie Neighbors was to provide information to the investigating authorities

but the following language was included in the letter to wit:

“. . .if Ms. Neighbors provides a complete and truthful account of all information that
she has regarding all criminal wrongdoing perpetrated by herself or others, The United States

Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas agrees that no statements made by Ms.

Neighbors during the proffer will be used against her in its case-in-chief, or in connection

with any sentencing proceeding, except as follows:

“. . . (3) In the event that Ms. Neighbors is a witness at any judicial proceeding, including a

criminal proceeding in which she is a defendant, and offers testimony that is different from

any statements provided during the proffer, the United States may use statements made by

Ms. Neighbors during the proffer, and all evidence derived directly or indirectly from such

statements, in cross examination of her. . .”

There were other exceptions to the proffer agreement than the one above set out but

they are not relevant to this motion. Therefore, such evidence should be excluded.

F. Any information regarding drugs or drug usage or drug manufacturing.

During the investigation of the current money laundering and mail and wire fraud allegations

the police discovered marijuana plants growing in the residence of the defendants. As a

result of that discovery the defendants have been charged separately in case 07-20073. There

is no relevance to the evidence of the marijuana that was found at the residence of the

defendants in the current case. Even if there were minimal suggestions of relevance of the

evidence it would be outweighed by the clear danger of unfair prejudice to the defendants.

Therefore, such evidence should be excluded.

G. Any information regarding any allegations that the government intends to

support their allegations of obstruction as charged in Case 08-20105.

As the result of actions taken by the defendants in August of 2008, two years after the

end of the conspiracy alleged in the instant case, the defendants were charged in case 08-
 20105 with obstruction. Obviously these allegations have no bearing whatsoever on the case

before this court and said evidence should not be allowed to be presented by the government

in its case. Therefore, such evidence should be excluded.

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, the court should exclude the evidence as above requested and issue an order in

limine regarding the same.

/s/ John M. Duma

JOHN M. DUMA KS No. 10760
303 E. Poplar
Olathe, Kansas 66061
(913) 782-7072
Fax 782-1383
JohnDuma@hotmail.com
ATTORNEY FOR CARRIE NEIGHBORS

/s/ Cheryl A. Pilate

CHERYL A. PILATE, KS No. 14601
MORGAN PILATE LLC
142 N. Cherry
Olathe, KS 66061
Telephone: 913-829-6336
ATTORNEY FOR GUY NEIGHBORS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 27, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the
court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to Marietta Parker
and Terra Morehead, Assistant U.S. Attorney, 360 U.S. Courthouse, 500 State Avenue, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101 and all other counsel of record. I further certify that I mailed the foregoing document
and notice of electronic filing by first-class mail to the following non-CM/ECF participants: Carrie
Neighbors.

_/s/ John M. Duma_____

John M. Duma No.10760

/s/ Cheryl A. Pilate

Cheryl A. Pilate, KS No. 14601