IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case Nos. 07-20073-CM
) 07-20124-CM
GUY M. NEIGHBORS, ) 08-20105-CM
and )
CARRIE NEIGHBORS, )
)
Defendants. )

GOVERNMENT’S CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANTS’ PRETRIAL MOTIONS PERTAINING TO DISCOVERY ISSUES

The United States of America, by and through Lanny D. Welch, United States

Attorney for the District of Kansas, Terra D. Morehead, and Marietta Parker, Assistant

United States Attorneys for said District, and hereby respond to the following motions filed

by the defendants: Defendants’ Joint Motion for Discovery of Exculpatory and Impeaching

Information Under Brady v. Maryland and for Discovery Under Rule 16 (Case No. 07-

20073-CM, Doc. #113; Case No. 07-20124-CM, Doc. #188; Case No. 08-20105-CM, Doc.

#67), all filed on July 27, 2009, and all of which are identical. In response to the

defendants’ motions, the Government offers the following:

The defendants’ motions obviously relate to discovery; motions the Government

would characterize as the “kitchen sink” motions. The Government would advise the Court

that full and complete discovery has been provided to defense counsel, over and above

what case law or Rule 16 require. The motions seem to be a request by defendants to

have the Government pour over the thousands of pages of discovery provided and isolate

material that somehow might benefit the defendants, so that defense counsel doesn’t have
to do their own tedious review of the materials provided.

The same General Order of Discovery and Scheduling was issued by the Court with

regards to all three cases, as follows: Case No. 07-20073-CM, Doc. #13; Case No. 07-

20124-CM, Doc. #11; Case No. 08-20105-CM, Doc. #33. This General Order of Discovery

and Scheduling makes some of defendants’ discovery requests moot, unless they are

seeking more than what this Order provides. Based upon the defendants’ motions seeking

discovery, the Government requests under the provisions of F.R.C.P. 16(b), that

defendants provide reciprocal discovery, forthwith.

The defendants’ make a blanket assertion in their motions that a “review of the

authorities cited above shows that Defendants are conclusively entitled to the above-listed

information and evidence.” The defendants are seeking many items under the “sink” that

they simply are not entitled to have or that the Government is not required to produce, i.e.,

just because they ask for it, doesn’t mean that they conclusively get it.

The Governments responses as to the specific requests by the defendant are as

follows:

1. Any information showing items seized by the government or being relied on in the
government’s case are not stolen.

– All such information known by the Government and in the Government’s

possession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel.

2. 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.

– All such information known by the Government and in the Government’s

possession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel.

3. Any information showing Guy Neighbors or Carrie Neighbors turned down certain
items offered or brought in by sellers or informants.

2
 – All such information known by the Government and in the Government’s
possession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel, which is
included in statement(s) of witnesses and in interviews of the defendants.

4. Any information showing that any items relied on in this case were not new or
appeared to be used.

– All such information known by the Government and in the Government’s

possession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel. It should
be noted that some items were in fact not new, but nevertheless stolen.

5. Any information showing that the sellers had receipts or other proof of ownership
or lawful possession.

– All such information known by the Government and in the Government’s

possession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel.

6. Any information showing that either Guy Neighbors or Carrie Neighbors, individually,
was not involved with a particular transaction.

– All such information known by the Government and in the Government’s

possession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel.

7. Any information supporting the seller’s representations to Guy Neighbors or Carrie

Neighbors about how the seller came to lawfully possess the item.

– All such information known by the Government and in the Government’s

possession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel. It should
be noted that the Government has not included in its prosecution, items sold to the
Neighbors, in which the sellers were in otherwise lawful possession of item(s) sold.

8. Any information concerning queries made or questions asked by Guy Neighbors or

Carrie Neighbors to determine the origin of a particular item or whether the seller
lawfully owned or possessed the item.

– All such information known by the Government and in the Government’s

possession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel.

9. Any information concerning other transactions that cooperating witnesses or

informants had with the Defendants in which the items were not stolen.

– All such information known by the Government and in the Government’s

possession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel.

3
10. Any information concerning the Lawrence Police Department’s treatment, inspection
or regulation of pawn shops, including whether Lawrence pawn shops have been
investigated for selling stolen property.

– This information is irrelevant to the current prosecution and the defendants are not
otherwise entitled to investigations by the Lawrence Police Department of pawn
shops concerning unrelated matters. Yellow House is not a pawn shop or pawn
broker, but instead is a “used goods store.” Pawn shops are licensed by the City
of Lawrence and therefore operate under very strict rules and regulations –
information which was provided in the discovery. The defendants are fully aware
of the requirements to become a pawn broker as evidenced when they opted not
to follow through with the application process to become a licenced pawn store.
This is nothing more than a fishing expedition, which Rule 16 and the cases
dictating its application, wholly denounce.

11. Any information concerning whether the cooperating witnesses or informants in this
case also sold to Lawrence pawn shops.

– All such information known by the Government and in the Government’s

possession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel. The
Government is certainly mindful of its ongoing duty to disclose Brady material and
will disclose any additional information if the same becomes known.

12. 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.

– The Government’s investigation dealt with individuals who indicated Guy and
Carrie Neighbors were not fair or honest and did buy and sell stolen property. The
Government has no duty or obligation to seek out such information. As such, all
such information known by the Government and in the Government’s possession
has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel.

13. 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 sold at their store or on E-Bay.

– The defendants are in an equal position to be aware of this information. However,

the Government believes this information constitutes inculpatory information. There
have been many occasions, including one on July 29, 2009, in which victims have
located their stolen property at the Yellow House Store or police have located
confirmed stolen property at the Yellow House Store, and, in which police respond
and confiscate confirmed stolen property. The Government would take exception
with any representation that this amounts to “cooperation” on the part of the
Neighbors’, but in fact confirms and corroborates that this business has historically

4
 and continues to traffic in stolen property. The defendants are obviously in the
same position to be aware of and have knowledge of these facts and
circumstances.

14. Reports of any interviews or statements with any witness or informant concerning
the Neighbors or Yellow House that has not been turned over to government
prosecutors.

– All such information known by the Government and in the Government’s

possession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel. The
Government is certainly mindful of its ongoing duty to disclose Brady material and
will disclose any additional information if the same becomes known..

15. Records of any surveillance or any video or audio tapes or photographs or tangible
evidence of any kind not turned over to government prosecutors.

– All such information known by the Government and in the Government’s

possession has been produced in discovery provided to defense counsel.

16. Complete information concerning the criminal history of each testifying or

cooperating witness or informant, including all arrests, charges, convictions and
sentences.

– The defendants’ suggestions that they are entitled to “criminal history” information
in total is wholly misplaced. The only part of a criminal record subject to disclosure
would be a conviction for a felony crime (FED . R. EVID . 609) or for conviction of a
crime that would have the effect of affecting the credibility of a witness (FED . R.
EVID . 608). Rule 609 further requires the Court to determine the probative value of
admitting the evidence regarding any prior felony outweighing its prejudicial effect.
These rules certainly do not require disclosure of criminal arrests, charges, any
other types of convictions, or sentences. The Government is certainly mindful of the
duty and responsibility to provide information concerning consideration, benefits,
and/or leniency provided to witnesses, which is ongoing, but this certainly does not
impose a carte blanche requirement to provide such information.

17. Complete information about all pending warrants or pending charges against any
cooperating witness.

– The defendants are not entitled to such information. The Government is certainly
mindful of the duty and responsibility to provide information concerning
consideration, benefits, and/or leniency provided to witnesses, which is ongoing, but
this certainly does not impose a carte blanche requirement to provide such
information unless promises or assurances have been made by the Government.

5
18. Complete information about any pending investigations of any witness, including
any investigation in which the witness may avoid criminal charges by cooperating
in the prosecution of the defendants.

– The defendants are not entitled to such information. The Government is certainly
mindful of the duty and responsibility to provide information concerning
consideration, benefits, and/or leniency provided to witnesses, which is ongoing, but
this certainly does not impose a carte blanche requirement to provide such
information unless promises or assurances have been made by the Government.

19. Complete information about any pending warrants or any outstanding parole or
probation violations by any witness or informant.

– The defendants are not entitled to such information. The Government is certainly
mindful of the duty and responsibility to provide information concerning
consideration, benefits, and/or leniency provided to witnesses, which is ongoing, but
this certainly does not impose a carte blanche requirement to provide such
information unless promises or assurances have been made by the Government.

20. Complete information about all consideration, benefits, and/or leniency, – extended,
promised or offered as a possibility – to any witness, including but not limited to:

a. evidence of plea bargains offered for cooperation, including all terms stated
in any plea agreements.

– The Government has already produced some of the requested information

in discovery provided to defense counsel. The Government is continuing to
evaluate what witness testimony will be produced at trial, as such, the
Government is aware this will remain a continuing duty/obligation to disclose.
The Government will assure that all such information of testifying cooperating
witnesses is supplied prior to the presentation of their testimony.

b. copies of proffer letters, plea agreements and 5K motions concerning

witnesses and informants.

– The Government has already produced some of the requested information

in discovery provided to defense counsel. The Government is continuing to
evaluate what witness testimony will be produced at trial, as such, the
Government is aware this will remain a continuing duty/obligation to disclose.
The Government will assure that all such information of testifying cooperating
witnesses is supplied prior to the presentation of their testimony.

c. records of any money or other valuable benefit paid to any witness or

informant in this case.

6
 – The Government will assure that all such information of testifying
cooperating witnesses is supplied prior to the presentation of their testimony.

d. any document reflecting any communication by a prosecutor with a state or

federal prosecutor or any official of any prison, jail or law enforcement
agency on behalf of any witness or informant in this case which seeks any
benefit, leniency, or special consideration of any kind for the witness or
informant.

– This is a redundant request. The Government is certainly mindful of the

duty and responsibility to provide information concerning consideration,
benefits, and/or leniency provided to witnesses, which is ongoing. The
Government will assure that all such information of testifying cooperating
witnesses is supplied prior to the presentation of their testimony.

e. any special favors or benefits to detained inmates, including but limited to,
grants of housing preferences, protective custody, special privileges,
provision of commissary items or special foods or snacks, provision of
clothing items including sneakers, gym shoes, athletic shoes or any other
item of special apparel not otherwise available.

– This is an overbroad request. The Government is certainly mindful of the

duty and responsibility to provide information concerning consideration,
benefits, and/or leniency provided to witnesses, as it relates to their
cooperation in the cases at hand. However, the Government takes
exception that the defendants’ would be entitled to information that relates
to benefits conferred upon them as a result of good institutional conduct or
that relate to institutional security issues. This is obviously nothing more
than a “fishing expedition.”

f. any other special favors or benefits to detained inmates, such as special

telephone privileges, access to media or computers or any other benefit that
is not generally available to other detainees at the facility.

– This is an overbroad and redundant request. The Government is certainly

mindful of the duty and responsibility to provide information concerning
consideration, benefits, and/or leniency provided to witnesses, as it relates
to their cooperation in the cases at hand. However, the Government takes
exception that the defendants’ would be entitled to information that relates
to benefits conferred upon them as a result of good institutional conduct

21. Correspondence, notes or email from any cooperating witness or informant in 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

7
 present.

– The defendants are not carte blanche entitled to such information. The
Government is certainly mindful of its ongoing duty to disclose Brady material and
will disclose any such information as the same becomes known.

22. Handwritten notes of any federal law enforcement agent or Lawrence police officer
or other law enforcement agent concerning this case.

– The law does not require the production of these notes unless there is a manifest
necessity, i.e, they have been “adopted” by an interviewed witness. The
Government has already provided through discovery reports of law enforcement
personnel pertaining to the investigation, including interviews with witnesses or
potential witnesses. However, this discovery does not include any notes the law
enforcement personnel took during the course of the investigation, to include
interviews, which were used to create the respective reports. Because there has
been no “adoption” of these notes or reports by any potential witnesses and there
is no indication that these notes or reports would be useful to the defendants to
impeach these witnesses, there are no grounds to provide these notes. However,
in the event that these notes may be “adopted” by the witnesses and would be
useful to impeach any witness, Government counsel has directed the agents in this
case to preserve and maintain their notes of interviews with witnesses or potential
witnesses in this case.

23. Handwritten or typewritten notes of any prosecutor reflecting any meeting with or
conversation, on the phone or in person, with any witness in this case.

– The defendants are not entitled to such information as the same would constitute
work product/trial preparation. The Government is certainly mindful of its ongoing
duty to disclose Brady material and will disclose any such information.

24. All information concerning any relationship between or among any witnesses in this
case, including information that any witnesses participated in drug trafficking
together, or are related to each other, or live together.

– The defendants are not carte blanche entitled to such information. The
Government is certainly mindful of its ongoing duty to disclose Brady material and
will disclose any such information. However, the obligation to disclose Brady
material is only extended to that material that is known to the Government. The
Government is not required to go on a “fishing expedition” on behalf of the
defendants in an attempt to seek information that can be used to conform to the
defendants twisted theory of a conspiracy.

25. All information concerning any relationship that any witness in this case has with the

8
 Defendants or a member of their immediate family.

– The defendants are obviously in a superior position to know or be aware of such

information.

26. All statements made by any witness or informant in the case, including all prior
inconsistent statements.

– The Government has not duty to provide such information for individuals that may
have provided information during the investigation who will not be called as
witnesses, unless such information about that individual would be exculpatory.
Similarly, the Government will provide statements of likely witnesses, but will not
provide statements of cooperating individuals who will not be called as witnesses,
unless the information contained in the statement is exculpatory.

27. 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.

– The defendants are not entitled to this information as the same is wholly
irrelevant. Annette Miller is not and has never been a Government witness. The
response to this request will more fully be addressed in the Government’s response
to Defendants’ Joint Motion for Discovery of All Information in the Possession of the
Lawrence Police Department and the United States Pertaining to Annette Miler (sp),
(Case No. 07-20124, Doc. #192; Case No. 08-20105, Doc. #69).

28. All information concerning the substance abuse history and current drug use of any
witness or informant in the case.

– The defendants are not carte blanche entitled to such information. The
Government is certainly mindful of its ongoing duty to disclose Brady material and
will disclose any such information. However, the obligation to disclose Brady
material is only extended to that material that is known to the Government. The
Government is not required to go on a “fishing expedition” on behalf of the
defendants in an attempt to seek information.

29. 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.

– The defendants are not entitled to such information. While the defendants may
be entitled to be advised if a witness or informant has or has not cooperated in

9
 other, unrelated cases, that certainly does not entitle the defendants to investigative
reports of those matters. These matters may be ongoing criminal investigations or
prosecutions and the defendants are certainly not entitled to materials under the
premise that they “may” be helpful to the defense. The Government is certainly
mindful of its ongoing duty to disclose Brady material and will disclose any such
information as the same becomes known. The defendants have the same
opportunity to request and obtain courtroom transcripts as the Government, but the
Government is not under an obligation to acquire the same for the defendants’
purported benefit.

30. All information concerning any history of serious mental illness of any witness or
informant in this case.

– The defendants are not carte blanche entitled to such information. The
Government is certainly mindful of its ongoing duty to disclose Brady and Rule 16
material and will disclose any such information. However, the obligation to disclose
Brady and Rule 16 material is only extended to that material that is known to or in
possession of the Government. The Government is not required to go on a “fishing
expedition” on behalf of the defendants in an attempt to seek information.

31. Police Department personnel records of all testifying law enforcement officers,
including Officer Bialek, Officer Rantz and Officer McAtee. (This is especially critical
if the prosecution attempts to bring in evidence of the Neighbors’ “blogging” or “blast
emails” concerning alleged corruption in the police department).

– The defendants are not carte to such information. The defendants cannot create
a situation (“blogging” or “blast emails”) about wholly baseless accusations and then
seek or demand that the Government produce information to support their baseless
claims. The Government will make any appropriate Giglio disclosures pertaining to
law enforcement personnel, however, under no circumstances would the
defendants be entitled to the officers’ “personnel records” to further their fishing
expedition.

Therefore, the defendant’s motion for disclosure of all of this information should be

overruled and denied as moot because of the Court’s General Order of Discovery and

Scheduling or because the information has already been provided, or alternatively because

the information sought by the defendant far exceeds what is required to be provided under

the Rules of Criminal Procedure and applicable case law.

10
 Respectfully submitted,

LANNY D. WELCH
Acting United States Attorney

s/ Terra D. Morehead
Terra D. Morehead, #12759
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 State Avenue, Suite 360
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913) 551-6730
Terra.Morehead@usdoj.gov

s/ Marietta Parker
Marietta Parker, #77807
Assistant U.S. Attorney
500 State Avenue, Suite 360
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913) 551-6730
Marietta.Parker@usdoj.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 5th day of August, 2009, I electronically filed the
foregoing response with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send
a notice of electronic to all counsel of record.

s/ Terra D. Morehead
Terra D. Morehead
Assistant United States Attorney

11