Description

Case 2:08-mj-08077-JPO

Document 27

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 1 of 2

CLERK’S COURTROOM MINUTE SHEET - GENERAL Case No. 08-8077-01/02-JPO CAPTION: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GUY NEIGHBORS and CARRIE NEIGHBORS, Defendants. Cheryl Pilate John Duma APPEARANCES: Marietta Parker Terra Morehead

Judge: James P. O’Hara Date: August 18, 2008 Length of Hearing: Hearing Completed: (X) Motion Hearing ( ) Other: Hr(s) 50

Clerk: Kathy Grant Location: Kansas City Min(s) ( ) No

Recorded: audio tape

(X) Yes

( ) Status Conference

( ) Settlement Conference

PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS As explained on the record, upon review of the arguments made in the papers filed by the parties in Case No. 08-8077 (the "Obstruction Case"), the court concludes the government has stated a violation of federal law in the complaint (doc. 1). Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss (doc. 23) therefore is denied, without prejudice to defendants’ right to renew their legal arguments by way of a motion to dismiss any corresponding indictment that might be returned by a grand jury. The defendants shall be required to answer further in this court on this case, as the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing shows at least probable cause that defendants committed the crime charged.

O:\CRIMINAL\08-8077-01-02 -JPO-MS-Aug18.wpd

Case 2:08-mj-08077-JPO

Document 27

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 2 of 2

Judge O'Hara makes no finding of any kind and will defer to a U.S. District Judge for appropriate action, if any, as to whether the conduct of federal officials acting in concert with university and city officials constitutes a violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights under Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964). That issue seems immaterial for purposes of a preliminary hearing on a complaint. As relates to the issue raised during the preliminary hearing about whether Robert Sample’s signature actually appeared on the documents offered by the defendants and admitted into this record (see, e.g., Ex B), there is insufficient testimony for the court to conclude one way or the other. The court makes no finding that defendants altered these documents, as contended by the government. The government’s motions for detention of defendants in the Obstruction Case (docs. 6 and 8), are denied. Conditions of release in the Obstruction Case will track those have been previously set in Case No. 07-20124 (the "EBay Case") (docs 5 and 9). In addition to those conditions, defendants shall comply with the agreed restraining order in the EBay Case (doc. 118). Further, consistent with the representation of defendants’ attorneys, defendants shall shut down immediately all Internet or electronic sales of goods whether that be directly or indirectly. Further, as Mr. Duma, counsel for defendant Carrie Neighbors, has proposed on the record on behalf of both defendants, the conditions of release in this case will require the defendants in operating their store in Lawrence, Kansas, to make efforts to erect prominent signs that require potential customers to show documentation and give assurances that they are not selling stolen property. The pending petitions filed by the pretrial services officer in the both the EBay Case (docs. 130 and 131), and in Case No. 07-20073 (the "Drug Case") (docs. 84 and 85), are denied for essentially the same reasons that the court has denied the government’s motion for pretrial detention in the Obstruction Case. Further, the government’s renewed motions to revoke bond (docs. 128 and 129 in the EBay Case) are denied. The conditions of release in all three cases shall be modified as outlined above. The Government’s motions in the Obstruction Case for a mental examination of both defendants (docs. 18 and 19) are denied, without prejudice to reassertion of those motions at a later date. Defendants’ joint motion to commission a mental evaluation as filed in the EBay Case (doc. 122), and the related motion to authorization of the expenses related to