Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM

Document 168

Filed 07/06/10

Page 1 of 4

Carrie Neighbors Defendant [1 / Pro Se Litigant J
1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785

..'\ :.;:,::.~gF. \ ;
••. # --

[~J\~l;\ "

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,

v. CARRIE NEIGHBORS,
Defendant 1,

Case No: 07-20073-CM 07-20t24-CM OS-20tOS-CM

GUY M. NEIGHBORS
Defendant 2,

DEFENDANT [ll'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT [IPS MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING COMES NOW on this 6th day of July 2010, the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant,
is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [1]' s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing, The Reply is as follows: 1). Due to the testimony of the Officers as in [Doc 133] in which the Defendant now requests to, re-iterates and incorporates the contents of [Doc 133] into this Reply, it would require the Defendant [1] had a due process right to request an Evidentiary Hearing to determine on a reliable foundation and was relevant, in which is not so, in which the Defendant [1] can

Reply to Plaintiffs Response for an Evidentiary Hearing

Page 1

Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM

Document 168

Filed 07/06/10

Page 2 of 4

clearly show in this cause of action, whereby due to the tainted and mishandled evidence, procedure, and chain of custody, testified by two Lawrence police officers, (as in [Doc 133]) 2). The Defendant [l] will stipulate to not having an evidentiary hearing due to the officers sworn testimony, in which currently now confirms any and all evidence should be suppressed. "..the burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate that it is reasonably probable or reasonably certain that no tampering, alteration, or substitution has occurred. " [United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707 (lst

ci-. 1992)).

See also [USv. Roach, 582 F 3d. 1192 (ldh

a-;

(2009)

No. 08-3029)) " .... a district court, whenfaced with a party's objection, must adequately demonstrate by specific findings on the record that it has performed it duty as gatekeeper. " Goebel, 215 F 3d at 1088 (citation omitted). "Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if itfails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. "' -Mr. Justice Brandeisf THEREORE the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant, is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [1]'s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing Prays the Court grant in favor to Suppress any and all evidence due to the two police officers testimony, in which is an agreed stipulated fact as referenced in [Doc 133] with no objections, whereby the Defendant [1] has met her burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, inclusive is the testimony of both police officers that any and all evidence should be suppressed.

Reply to Plaintiffs Response for an EVidentiary Hearing

Page 2

Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM

Document 168

Filed 07/06/10

Page 3 of 4

Respectfully submitted,

Carrie Neighbors Defendant [1J / Pro Se Litigant 1104 Andover Lawrence, Kansas 66049 (785) 842-2785

Reply to Plaintiffs Response for an Evidentiary Hearing

Page 3

Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM

Document 168

Filed 07/06/10

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [Pursuant to KSA 60-205] The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to: Cheryl A Pilate Melanie Morgan LLC Defendant [2] counsel of record 142 Cherry Olathe, Kansas 66061

Marietta Parker Terra Morehead U.S. Attorneys 500 State Ave. Suite 360 Kansas City, KS 66101

On this 6th day of July 2010.

Reply to Plaintiffs Response for an Evidentiary Hearing

Page 4