Mr. Faraj, Thanks for the heads up. I'll be looking for the briefs. TCs, I'll permit response to these motions orally when we take them up. Let me know what the Gov't position is on the expert situation. It is probably not unusual for offices to balk at producing two experts to the trial participants on the same case. V/r, LtCol Simmons. -----Original Message----- From: Haytham Faraj [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 10:59 To: Simmons LtCol Gregory L; Day Capt Evan S; Crosswell Capt Ryan R; Nichols 1st Lt Roy Cc: Leggett GySgt Terrance R; Garrett LCpl Kathryn S; Orellana SSgt Luis M; Gallaher Sgt Andrew D; Grisalesmery Cpl Alejandro; Mendoza Cpl Monica A Subject: Defense notice of intent to file additional motions in U.S. v. Wylde and other pretrial issues Your honor, I would like to provide notice that we will have three motions in limine to be handled before we start the Wylde trial. They are: 1. Motion in limine to preclude any mention of PFC Wiley's medical/mental health issues by any witness, including Wiley, unless the government first establishes that the proffered condition was caused by the ingestion of a substance provided by PFC Wylde pursuant to M.R.E. 401 and 403. See also M.R.E. 404b. 2. Motion in limine to preclude any admission or confession of the accused unless it can first be independently corroborated pursuant to M.R.E. 304(g). 3. Motion in Limine to preclude the testimony of any expert unless a report of such expert's putative testimony is provided to the defense beforehand. I will provide short briefs before COB Friday. I believe these are all evidentiary matters that the Court would have to take up during the course of the trial before the evidence is presented in open court. I intend to move that we address them before we begin on Monday. Finally, there is a matter that I believe could cause potential delay. Our Government appointed expert informed me today that he has been advised by his command that they can only support the Government's request to provide one expert rather than two due to the potential conflict that will arise from having two experts from the same department in the same case. Trial counsel and I discussed this issue last week and I waived the conflict. It appears that the command has raised the conflict issue. That will mean that the Government will probably need time to find another expert. I'll keep the court updated on the latest developments. Vr, Haytham Faraj
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature