FYI - I'm in the office next door, unscrewing this case file. Things are not organized, to say the least. If you need me, call my cell. S. Russell Shinn Captain, US Marine Corps Officer-in-Charge Defense Counsel Assistance Program Marine Corps Defense Services Organization 703.614.0885 (w) 703.470.0671 (c) "Marines Defending Marines" ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION OR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. The information contained in or attached to this communication is confidential, legally privileged and intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is transmitted. Any other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. Do not disseminate without the approval of the OIC, DCAP. This e-mail and all other electronic or voice communication from this address are for informational purposes only. No such communication is intended by the sender or the agency to constitute either an electronic record, or an electronic signature, or to constitute any agreement by the sender to conduct a transaction by electronic means. If you receive this e-mail in error, please permanently delete the original and any other copies or printouts of this e-mail, and notify me immediately at the above e-mail address or phone number. To the extent the information contained in or attached to this communication contains Privacy Act information, that information is for OFFICIAL USE ONLY. -----Original Message----- From: Haytham Faraj [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 10:11 To: Shinn Capt Scott R Subject: USNA allegations Please point me to it. -----Original Message----- From: Shinn Capt Scott R [mailto:scott.shinn@usmc.mil] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 10:09 AM To: Haytham Faraj Subject: RE: US v. Rowe witness request FYI - Just read the NCIS report from the USNA allegation of rape - GOLDMINE! 3 inconsistent statements during one investigation. YUT! -----Original Message----- From: Haytham Faraj [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 7:33 To: Shinn Capt Scott R Subject: RE: US v. Rowe witness request No worries. Figured you got busy. Thanks for putting it together. -----Original Message----- From: Shinn Capt Scott R [mailto:scott.shinn@usmc.mil] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 7:21 AM To: Haytham Faraj Subject: RE: US v. Rowe witness request Haytham, I had to go to the Pentagon yesterday afternoon - thanks for filing it. ~Russ -----Original Message----- From: Haytham Faraj [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 18:11 To: Shinn Capt Scott R Subject: Re: US v. Rowe witness request Russ, Are you going to file this? Haytham Faraj Sent from my iPhone On Nov 15, 2011, at 3:35 PM, "Shinn Capt Scott R" <scott.shinn@usmc.mil> wrote: > Haytham, > See attached... quick and dirty. Still needs evidence (highlighted) - is there a statement out there from Warren and/or Wilson that talks about her motives? > > > ~Russ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Haytham Faraj [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 12:37 > To: Shinn Capt Scott R > Cc: 'Jim Rowe' > Subject: RE: US v. Rowe witness request > > Scott, > Can you draft a basic witness production motion for the witnesses denied by > the Government? The Government's reliance on 608(b) is misplaced. We are > not seeking to impeach Klay's character for truthfullness through extrinsic > evidence but to an issue in the case. See notes of F.R.E. 608. Evidence > falling under 404(b) may be proved through extrinsic evidence. The language > of the Rule is pretty clear. We can use it to prove Klay's motive's in > making the allegations; her modus opporendi; or her intent to divert > attention from her own misconduct. THIS IS NOT CHARACTER EVIDENCE. Some > courts have held that the defense faces a lower burden of admissibility > because there is no danger of prejudice to the accused. See United States > v. Stevens, 935 F.2d 1380, 1403 (3rd cir. 1991). See also United States v. > Aboumousallem, "We believe the standard of admissibility when a criminal > defendant offers similar acts evidence as a shield need not be as > restrictive as when a prosecutor uses such evidence as a sword. 726 F.2d > 906, 911-12 (2nd Cir. 1984). In an extensive analysis of the law in the > various circuits, the Ninth Circuit opinion clearly finds that 404(b) > applies a lower standard to the Defendant. United States v. McCourt, 925 > F.2d 1229 (9th Cir. 1991). > > This doesn't need to be a lengthy motion; just enough to get it before the > court and give sufficient notice to the other side. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shinn Capt Scott R [mailto:scott.shinn@usmc.mil] > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 1:16 PM > To: Combe Capt Peter C > Cc: haytham@puckettfaraj.com > Subject: RE: US v. Rowe witness request > > Thank you for the clarification! > > > V/r, > > S. Russell Shinn > Captain, US Marine Corps > > Officer-in-Charge > Defense Counsel Assistance Program > Marine Corps Defense Services Organization > > 703.614.0885 (w) > 703.470.0671 (c) > > "Marines Defending Marines" > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Combe Capt Peter C > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 13:12 > To: Shinn Capt Scott R > Cc: 'haytham@puckettfaraj.com' > Subject: RE: US v. Rowe witness request > > Apologies, > > The government will produce LtCol Hudspeth. My email refered to Capt Wilson > and Maj Warren. > > Capt Peter C. Combe II > Trial Counsel > Office of the SJA, MCB Quantico > 3250 Catlin Ave. > Quantico, VA 22134 > > Comm: (703) 784-0037 DSN: 278 > Fax: (703) 784-0035 DSN: 278 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shinn Capt Scott R > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 13:11 > To: Combe Capt Peter C > Cc: 'haytham@puckettfaraj.com' > Subject: RE: US v. Rowe witness request > > Capt Combe, > On the phone this morning, I believe you indicated that the government > would produce LtCol Hudspeth, given the clarification Mr. Faraj provided > regarding her testimony. Does the email below reference Capt Wilson and Maj > Warren or all three that the government initially refused to produce? > > > V/r, > > S. Russell Shinn > Captain, US Marine Corps > > Officer-in-Charge > Defense Counsel Assistance Program > Marine Corps Defense Services Organization > > 703.614.0885 (w) > 703.470.0671 (c) > > "Marines Defending Marines" > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Combe Capt Peter C > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 13:05 > To: haytham@puckettfaraj.com; Shinn Capt Scott R > Subject: US v. Rowe witness request > > Good afternoon gentlemen, > > After reviewing the applicable M.R.E.s, the various statements of the > witnesses, and your request the government maintains that the requested > witnesses will not be produced. > > Unfortunately it appears that we will have to address this with the court. > > Very Respectfully, > Peter C. Combe II > Capt, U.S. Marine Corps > Trial Counsel > > Office of the Staff Judge Advocate > Military Justice Office > Marine Corps Base Quantico > 3250 Catlin Avenue > Quantico, VA 22134 > > Comm: (703) 784-0037 DSN: 278 > Fax: (703) 784-0035 DSN: 278 > > NOTICE: This electronic transmission contains privacy sensitive > information, attorney work-product or information protected under the > attorney-client privilege. It is confidential, legally privileged and > intended for use only by the individual or entity which is entitled to > receive this transmission for official use only. Any misuse or unauthorized > access is strictly prohibited and may result in both civil and criminal > penalties. Do not release this information without prior authorization from > the sender. If this has inadvertently reached the wrong party, please > delete all materials pertaining to it immediately and notify the sender at > the email address or phone number above. This electronic transmission is > also not intended by the sender or the agency to constitute either an > electronic record, or an electronic signature, or to constitute any > agreement by the sender to conduct a transaction by electronic means. > > > > <Rowe Motion - Compel Witnesses.docx>
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature