Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Defendants Guy Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors, by and through their respective
counsel Melanie S. Morgan and John Duma, move this Honorable Court to enter an Order
directing the timely production of all exculpatory and impeaching evidence as demanded
by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and as described by the Supreme
Court in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S.
150 (1972). “The essence of the Brady rule is the proposition that nondisclosure of
material exculpatory evidence violates a defendant’s due process right to a fair trial.”
Smith v. Sec’y of New Mexico Dep’t of Corrections, 50 F.3d 801, 823 (10 th Cir. 1995).
Mr. Neighbors and Mrs. Neighbors further seek all discovery to which they are entitled
1
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 113 Filed 07/27/09 Page 2 of 14
under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. In further support of this motion, the
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
I. Factual Background
Mr. Neighbors and Mrs. Neighbors are charged in three federal cases, the most
complex of which charges 18 counts, including conspiracy, fraud, and money laundering,
House. The Neighbors are also charged in a marijuana case, Case No. 07-20073, and in a
Among those three cases, there are dozens of witnesses and potentially hundreds
of exculpatory and impeaching facts. Some of these facts will concern just one of these
cases, while others may be relevant to two cases or to all three. In the interest of
efficiency and economy, Defendants seek the timely production of all Brady/Giglio
As part of the discovery process, the government has produced more than 70 CDs
pages of reports and documents obtained from the Yellow House business. They now
seek additional evidence, favorable to their defense, that they reasonably believe may be
2
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 113 Filed 07/27/09 Page 3 of 14
The heart of the government’s massive prosecutorial effort is the Yellow House or
E Bay case, which involves allegations that Mr. Neighbors and Mrs. Neighbors purchased
various household, recreational and apparel items, including appliances and computers,
from various sellers, “knowing that the property had been stolen,” and then re-sold the
property on E-Bay. The marijuana case involves essentially a separate matter (a small
indoor garden allegedly used to cultivate marijuana plants), but the obstruction case is
linked, at least tangentially, to the E-Bay case in that it involves the receipt of allegedly
stolen property and alleged “obstruction” that occurred when authorities investigated the
The prosecution of the E-Bay and obstruction cases essentially rests on: (1) the
purported knowledge that the property was stolen; and (3) whether the characterization of
the property as stolen may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Absent
credible evidence that the property was stolen and that the Neighbors either knew or had
Clearly, the ability to obtain and use exculpatory and impeaching evidence in this
case will be vital to Mr. Neighbors’ and Mrs. Neighbors’ efforts to mount a defense. The
right of a criminal defendant to due process is, “in essence, the right to a fair opportunity
to defend against the State’s accusations.” Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294
(1973). This necessarily includes the “right to present a defense” so that the jury may
3
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 113 Filed 07/27/09 Page 4 of 14
hear “the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s” and then decide
“where the truth lies.” Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 (1972). In the present case, the
Neighbors must have access to exculpatory and impeaching evidence that is vital to their
ability to defend against the government’s accusations and to present their theory of
defense.
In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the Supreme Court held that “the
due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, irrespective of
the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Id. at 87. In 1972, the Supreme Court
extended that rule to impeachment evidence, recognizing that because the credibility of a
disclose such impeachment evidence. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
The prosecutor cannot limit his or her duty to produce exculpatory and impeaching
evidence by relying solely on what is in the prosecutor’s file. To the contrary, the
prosecutor “has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the
government’s behalf in the case, including the police” and to disclose that evidence to the
defense. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437-38 (1995). The prosecutor’s duty to
4
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 113 Filed 07/27/09 Page 5 of 14
The prosecutor must make these disclosures “whether a general request is made or
whether no request is made.” Banks v. Reynolds, 54 F.3d 1508, 1517 (10 th Cir. 1995)
(emphasis added). Because the exculpatory nature of particular evidence “can seldom be
predicted accurately until the entire record is complete,” the prosecutor “must resolve
close cases and ‘doubtful questions in favor of disclosure.’” Banks, 54 F.3d at 1517
(quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 108 (1976)). The prosecutor is not
required to disclose all evidence, only that which is exculpatory and material. In Kyles v.
Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), the Supreme Court stated that the requirement of
“materiality” means that, in the absence of producing such evidence, the trial could not be
regarded as fair and the verdict would not be “worthy of confidence.” Id. at 434; see also
Trammell v. McKune, 485 F.3d 546, 551 (10 th Cir. 2007) (citing Kyles materiality
standard); see also Banks, 54 F.3d at 1518. A prosecutor who is “anxious about tacking
too close to the wind will disclose a favorable piece of evidence.” Kyles, 115 S. Ct. at
1568.
the Tenth Circuit recognized in Smith, the essence of the Brady rule rests on the
due process right to a fair trial. Smith, 50 F.3d at 823. Under the Brady framework, “no
distinction is recognized between evidence that exculpates a defendant and ‘evidence that
the defense might have used to impeach the [State’s] witnesses by showing bias and
5
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 113 Filed 07/27/09 Page 6 of 14
interest.’” Douglas v. Workman, 560 F.3d 1156, 1172-73 (10 th Cir. 2009) United States v.
These principles are so critical to a fair trial that the Department of Justice issued
emphasize the prosecutor’s Brady/Giglio obligations. Indeed, the DOJ stated that its
position required prosecutors “to go beyond the minimum obligations imposed by the
Constitution” and adhere to broad standards for the disclosure of exculpatory and
impeaching information. See Exhibit A. This view was recently reflected by United
States Attorney General Eric Holder when he dismissed the prosecution against former
Senator Ted Stevens because prosecutors had not complied with their obligations under
Brady and had, among other things, failed to turn over prosecutorial notes that were
The present case is precisely the kind of case in which the production of
guarantees of due process and a fair trial. The discovery in this case is voluminous, and
the federal case agent and local police officers have worked on it for years. Numerous
issues in the case are hotly contested. Many of the government’s witnesses are
consideration or leniency for their statements and testimony. Moreover, there are
substantial disputes about core issues probative of guilt or innocence, including whether
6
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 113 Filed 07/27/09 Page 7 of 14
there is evidence to support the claims that the items are stolen and whether the
Neighbors satisfied their legal obligations to inquire into the items’ origins. There is a
within the hands the government. That evidence must now be produced.
A. Brady Evidence
Mr. Neighbors and Mrs. Neighbors request that the government produce the
following:
– 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.
– Any information showing that any items relied on in this case were not new or
appeared to be used.
– Any information showing that the sellers had receipts or other proof of
7
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 113 Filed 07/27/09 Page 8 of 14
Carrie Neighbors about how the seller came to lawfully possess the item.
or Carrie Neighbors to determine the origin of a particular item or whether the seller
informants had with the Defendants in which the items were not stolen.
inspection or regulation of pawn shops, including whether Lawrence pawn shops have
– Any information or statements from any witnesses who stated that Guy
Neighbors or Carrie Neighbors were fair or honest or did not buy or sell stolen property.
– Any information showing that Guy Neighbors and/or Carrie Neighbors have
cooperated in the past with any law enforcement agency investigating the origin of items
concerning the Neighbors or Yellow House that has not been turned over to government
prosecutors.
8
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 113 Filed 07/27/09 Page 9 of 14
Mr. Neighbors and Mrs. Neighbors request that the government produce the
following:
sentences.
– Complete information about all pending warrants or pending charges against any
cooperating witness.
any investigation in which the witness may avoid criminal charges by cooperating in the
extended, promised or offered as a possibility – to any witness, including but not limited
to:
9
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 113 Filed 07/27/09 Page 10 of 14
facility.
10
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 113 Filed 07/27/09 Page 11 of 14
this case to any law enforcement agent or officer or Prosecutor in this case, written at any
time from the beginning of the witness’s cooperation in this case up to the present.
or conversation, on the phone or in person, with any witness int his case.
this case, including information that any witnesses participated in drug trafficking
– All information concerning any relationship that any witness in this case has with
– All statements made by any witness or informant in the case, including all prior
inconsistent statements.
– All information about Annette Miller, including her contacts with the police
department; her filing of any Internal Affairs complaints; her cooperation in other
prosecutions, state or federal; her status or role as an informant for the police, if any; and
her relationships, as an informant or otherwise, with any member of the Lawrence Police
Department.
11
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 113 Filed 07/27/09 Page 12 of 14
– All information concerning the substance abuse history and current drug use of
– All information about any other case in which any witness or informant in this
case has cooperated, including copies of any courtroom transcripts and investigative
reports.
– All information concerning any history of serious mental illness of any witness
including Officer Bialek, Officer Rantz and Officer McAtee. (This is especially critical if
A review of the authorities cited above shows that Defendants are conclusively
entitled to the above-listed information and evidence, as the production of this evidence is
essential to their right to fairly defend themselves, consistent with the Fifth and Sixth
IV. Rule 16
Guy Neighbors and Carrie Neighbors further request that the government produce
any remaining evidence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. They note that
they are not only entitled to their own statements, but also to the production of all
documents and tangible things in the government’s possession which the government
12
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 113 Filed 07/27/09 Page 13 of 14
intends to use in its case-in-chief or which were obtained from the Defendants. Rule 16
further requires that the government produce a written summary of any testimony to be
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE for all of the above-stated reasons, Guy Neighbors and Carrie
Neighbors respectfully request that this Court enter an order directing the United States to
provide all information and evidence requested above, as required by the Fifth
Amendments due process clause, the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and by Rule
16, and, further, that this Court allow the parties to address this matter fully at a hearing
so that Defendants can take all appropriate steps to ensure proper compliance with the
Respectfully Submitted,
AND
13
Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 113 Filed 07/27/09 Page 14 of 14
Telephone: 913-782-7072
Facsimile: 913-782-1383
Attorney for Carrie Neighbors
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Melanie S. Morgan, do certify that a true and accurate copy of the above and
foregoing motion was served electronically on the Clerk of the Court and the government
14