• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSASUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,))Plaintiff,))v.) Case Nos. 07-20073-CM)07-20124-CMGUY M. NEIGHBORS,)08-20105-CMand)CARRIE NEIGHBORS,))Defendants.)GOVERNMENT’S CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE TODEFENDANTS’ PRETRIAL MOTIONS PERTAINING TO DISCOVERY ISSUES
The United States of America, by and through Lanny D. Welch, United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, Terra D. Morehead, and Marietta Parker, AssistantUnited States Attorneys for said District, and hereby respond to the following motions filedby the defendants: Defendants’ Joint Motion for Discovery of Exculpatory and ImpeachingInformation Under 
Brady v. Maryland 
and for Discovery Under Rule 16 (Case No. 07-20073-CM, Doc. #113; Case No. 07-20124-CM, Doc. #188; Case No. 08-20105-CM, Doc.#67), all filed on July 27, 2009, and all of which are identical. In response to thedefendants’ motions, the Government offers the following:The defendants’ motions obviously relate to discovery; motions the Governmentwould characterize as the “kitchen sink” motions. The Government would advise the Courtthat full and complete discovery has been provided to defense counsel, over and abovewhat case law or Rule 16 require. The motions seem to be a request by defendants tohave the Government pour over the thousands of pages of discovery provided and isolatematerial that somehow might benefit the defendants, so that defense counsel doesn’t have
 
2to do their own tedious review of the materials provided.The same General Order of Discovery and Scheduling was issued by the Court withregards to all three cases, as follows: Case No. 07-20073-CM, Doc. #13; Case No. 07-20124-CM, Doc. #11; Case No. 08-20105-CM, Doc. #33. This General Order of Discoveryand Scheduling makes some of defendants’ discovery requests moot, unless they areseeking more than what this Order provides. Based upon the defendants’ motions seekingdiscovery, the Government requests under the provisions of F.R.C.P. 16(b), thatdefendants provide reciprocal discovery, forthwith.The defendants’ make a blanket assertion in their motions that a “review of theauthorities cited above shows that Defendants are
conclusively 
entitled to the above-listedinformation and evidence.” The defendants are seeking many items under the “sink” thatthey simply are not entitled to have or that the Government is not required to produce, i.e., just because they ask for it, doesn’t mean that they
conclusively 
get it.The Governments responses as to the specific requests by the defendant are asfollows:1.Any information showing items seized by the government or being relied on in thegovernment’s case are not stolen.
 –
 All such information known by the Government and in the Government’spossession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel.2.Any information showing such items were obtained by the seller by means other than stealing, including but not limited to, in a transaction involving the trading of goods.
 –
All such information known by the Government and in the Government’spossession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel.3.Any information showing Guy Neighbors or Carrie Neighbors turned down certainitems offered or brought in by sellers or informants.
 
3
 –
All such information known by the Government and in the Government’spossession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel, which isincluded in statement(s) of witnesses and in interviews of the defendants.4.Any information showing that any items relied on in this case were not new or appeared to be used.
 –
All such information known by the Government and in the Government’spossession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel. It shouldbe noted that some items were in fact not new, but nevertheless stolen.5.Any information showing that the sellers had receipts or other proof of ownershipor lawful possession.
 –
All such information known by the Government and in the Government’spossession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel.6.Any information showing that either Guy Neighbors or Carrie Neighbors, individually,was not involved with a particular transaction.
 –
 All such information known by the Government and in the Government’spossession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel.7.Any information supporting the seller’s representations to Guy Neighbors or CarrieNeighbors about how the seller came to lawfully possess the item.
 –
All such information known by the Government and in the Government’spossession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel. It shouldbe noted that the Government has not included in its prosecution, items sold to theNeighbors, in which the sellers were in otherwise lawful possession of item(s) sold.8.Any information concerning queries made or questions asked by Guy Neighbors or Carrie Neighbors to determine the origin of a particular item or whether the seller lawfully owned or possessed the item.
 –
All such information known by the Government and in the Government’spossession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel.9.Any information concerning other transactions that cooperating witnesses or informants had with the Defendants in which the items were
not 
stolen.
 –
All such information known by the Government and in the Government’spossession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel.
of 00

Leave a Comment

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