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