Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Comes now the United States of America, plaintiff herein, by and through the
undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, and moves for rulings in limine and
provides notice of the following issues for the Court to consider prior to the presentation
of evidence in the present case. The defendants, through various postings on several
internet web sites and during cross examination at several pretrial hearings, have made
law enforcement agents and attorneys involved in the investigation and prosecution of
this case. Based upon these allegations, the government reasonably believes that the
defendants will attempt to inject these issues into the trial of the case and requests that
before any inquiry into any of these unfounded and untrue allegations be made during
the trial of this case, the defendant be required to establish relevancy and their good
United States v. Turner, 553 F.3d 1337, 1349 (10th Cir. 2009)
Id.
In this case, the defendants have filed motions for disclosure of the government
witnesses’ substance abuse history and current drug use, their criminal histories
including arrests and charges filed, and any pending warrants. Clearly, the defendants
seek information relating to prior bad acts and the government requests that the
2
defendants be directed not to refer to any of those matters or to any of the following
matters during cross examination or during their cases-in-chief without first establishing,
out of the presence of the jury, the good faith basis for each allegation of misconduct or
other bad act and the relevance of each allegation to the issues in this case:
1. Evidence missing from the evidence room of the Lawrence, KS, Police
Department;
2. Guns seized by Lawrence Police Department being sold in area pawn shops;
10. Any other specific instance of misconduct offered to impeach the credibility
of a witness called by the government
3
grounds United States v. Flowers, 441 F.3d 900, 903 (10th Cir.(Kan.)). “Specific
witness’ credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in rule 609, any not be
proved by extrinsic evidence.” United States v. Abeita, 974 F.2d 1346, *3 (1992 WL
illegal and unethical conduct against the government’s witnesses and counsel,
apparently attempting to poison the jury pool and to force the government to dismiss
to Revoke Bond held on July 18 and July 21, 2008, when pressed by the government
counsel for defense counsel’s good faith basis for the argumentative and inflammatory
questions being asked by her of the government’s witness, counsel was either unable
or unwilling to identify the source or sources which formed her good faith basis for
asking questions of one of the Lawrence Police Officers about specific instances of
misconduct. (Document [Doc.] 150, Case No. 07-20124 at pp. 50-58, pp. 61-63, pp.
66-70.) Based upon the evidence presented at that hearing, the United States submits
that counsel’s failure to articulate a good faith basis for her questions at the detention
hearing in 2008 concerning specific acts of misconduct was occasioned by the total lack
of an evidentiary foundation for each question. As she told the court, counsel for Guy
Neighbors had not independently investigated the allegations (Doc. 150 at p. 52) and
her basis for the questions was information obtained from unnamed attorneys about
irregularities in other cases (Doc. 150 at p. 57). The United States submits that without
a more extensive foundation for these types of questions, inquiry into specific acts of
4
misconduct is not proper.
The United States respectfully requests that unless and until counsel for the
defendants have clearly identified a legally sufficient good-faith basis for each question
also established the relevance of each question, they be directed not to question the
Respectfully submitted,
LANNY D. WELCH
United States Attorney
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on the 5TH day of August, 2009, the foregoing was
electronically filed with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will
send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
John Duma
303 E. Poplar
Olathe, KS 66061
Attorney for Defendant Carrie Marie Neighbors
Cheryl A. Pilate
Morgan Pilate LLC
142 N. Cherry
Olathe, KS 66061
Attorney for Defendant Guy Madison Neighbors
5
I further certify that on this date the foregoing document and the notice of
electronic filing were mailed by first-class mail to the following non-CM/ECF
participants:
None
s/Marietta Parker
Assistant United States Attorney