Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 170 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 5

Carrie Neighbors " '''\\'3'1

,- ,J ;''l.'~1
':" '.)
Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant 14\ I'

1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

• v, Case No: 07-20073-CM

07-20t24-CM
OS-20tOS-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,

Defendant 1,

GUY M. NEIGHBORS

Defendant 2,

DEFENDANT nl'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO

THE DEFENDANT [Irs MOTION FOR WRITTEN TRANSCRIPTS

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 Transcripts. The

Reply is as follows:

1). The Defendant [1] re-iterates and incorporates the contents of [Doc 135] due to

Defendant [1] was specific in that she has a due process right under the 6th Amendment and

Compulsory process clause to challenge the truthfulness of the testimony of all witnesses.

2). The Defendant can clearly show that the testimony was incomplete, misleading, or

even deliberately fabricated. [see ref Taylor v, Illinois, 484 US. 400, 411-12 (1988)]

Reply to Plaintiffs Response for Request of Transcripts on Interviews Page 1

 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 170 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 5

3). The Defendant [1] does not only request a transcript of the witnesses interviews per

say, the Defendant also wants the transcript of the deals and or promises made prior to the

interviews. The Defendant is entitled to this, as a rebuttal to challenge the truthfulness of the

witness's testimony. A true and accurate accounting and documentation of the entire interviews

in their complete and true form, evidence currently unavailable in the discovery documents. See

Ref [Kyles v. Whitley, 514 Us. 419. 432-33.1311. Ed. 2d 490.115 S. Ct. 1555 0995)l.

"Because the net effict of the state-suppressed evidence favoring Kyles raises a reasonable

probability that its disclosure would have produced a different result at trial, the conviction

cannot stand ... "

4). Deals in which have been made, as well as, ongoing preferential treatment of the

witnesses have created obvious prejudicial bias against Defendant [1], thus creating a

"relationship of preferential treatment" between the Government and its witnesses, which is now

allowed to be challenged by the Defendant [1]. [See ref Us. v. Baldridge, 2009 WL 692107 (ldh

Cir)] "It is permissible impeachment to expose a witness's bias". [Abel, 469 Us. 45, 51, 105

S.Ct. 465, 83 1.Ed.2d 450 (l984)); [United States v. DeSoto, 950 F.2d 626, 630 (lOth

Cir.1991)}. "At common law, bias describes the relationship between a witness and a party

which might cause the witness to slant his testimony for or against the party". Abel, 469 Us. at

52, 105 S.O. 465.

5). Pursuant to the Confrontation Clause, in which guarantees and preservation of

evidence, in which the Plaintiff has already advised Defendant [1] after the Hearing on

OS/24/2010 that she had all the deals made with the witnesses, and she would produce them 10

days prior to trial. These deals were made prior to the interviews, in which would only confirm

the leading of the witnesses during the interviews, as the transcripts would show.1MASON V.

Reply to Plaintiffs Response for Request of Transcripts on Interviews Page 2

 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 170 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 5

MITCHELL,_320 F3d 604 (6th Cir. 2003)] "Forbidding defendant's inquiry into witness's bias

can violate confrontation clause". Now the Plaintiff is stating in her response, that the Plaintiff

does not intend to use the interview recordings, in which would be useful at trial to challenge the

truthfulness of the witnesses, The Plaintiff intends to use the notes of the Officers, (judicial note:

as the prior testimony in this court of the Officer under oath that he destroyed his notes, in which

never appeared before the court, by the Officer) in which now the Defendant questions the

preservation of evidence of the interviews in their entirety, due to the government is only

selectively producing what they want the jury to see, in which the Defendant [1] can and will

show the court that the interviews were bias and intentionally leading to the witnesses.

6). The Plaintiff now selectively chooses after wasting the taxpayers time and resources,

not to use witnesses, in which the Officers interviewed, in which either was not properly

documented, in which would be bias. The Defendant [1] has a right to challenge the truthfulness

of their testimony. If the Plaintiff cannot show that the interviews were properly documented in

their entirety, the Defendant [l] Requests that this court order any and all witnesses be

suppressed.[ US V. JACKSON-RANDOLPH 282 F3d 369 (6th Cir. 2002)]

"Bias", which is always relevant in assessing a witness's credibility, is the relationship between

a party and a witness which might lead the witness to slant, unconsciously or otherwise, his

testimony in favor of or against a party.

a) Negotiations of favors between officers and witnesses prior to the interviews will show

the witnesses state of mind and credibility of their statements. [HAYES V. WOQDFORD:. 301

F3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002] " When the prosecution is or should be aware that it is presenting

perjured testimony, a strict standard of materiality will be applied, and/or conviction will be set

Reply to Plaintiffs Response for Request of Transcripts on Interviews Page 3

 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 170 Filed 07/06/10 Page 4 of 5

aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the

judgment of the jury. "

"The government must act with great care when engaging in the practice of paying witnesses for
more than expenses. A defendant's right to be apprised of the government's compensation
arrangement with the witness and to inquire about it on cross-examination, must be vigorously
protected. United States v. Lipford, 203 S.3d 259 (4th Or. 2000). "

"The bribery statute 18 U.S. CA . .A§201 (c)(2 proscribing giving a thing of value for a witness's
testimony does not prohibit the United States from acting in accordance with long-standing
practice and statutory authority to pay fees, expenses, and rewards to informants even when the
payment is solely for testimony, so long as the payment is not for or because of any corruption of
truth of testimony. "

WHEREBY the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant, is filing a Reply to the

Plaintiffs Response to the Defendant [1]'s Motion for Transcripts and PRAYS the Court order

the Plaintiffto produce the transcripts (in their entirety) of any interviews of the witnesses, so

that the Confrontation Clause, in which guarantees and preservation of evidence is properly

complied with, as well as, the Defendant [1] has a constitutional due process right to challenge

the truthfulness of the witnesses testimony in this cause of action that any and all witnesses be

suppressed.

Respectfully submitted,

cbkY-
Defendant [l] / Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

Reply to Plaintiffs Response for Request of Transcripts on Interviews Page 4

 Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 170 Filed 07/06/10 Page 5 of 5

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.

Respectfully submitted,

ca~C*
Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

Reply to Plaintiffs Response for Request of Transcripts on Interviews Page 5