[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Motions ICO U.S. v. Wuterich



Haytham,

760-725-4820 = desk 

760-208-7090 = Blackberry

Talk to you soon,
Nick 

-----Original Message-----
From: Haytham Faraj [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 4:46
Cc: Gannon Maj Nicholas L
Subject: Re: Motions ICO U.S. v. Wuterich

Nick,
Would you please email me a number to call you on this afternoon?
Thanks.

Haytham Faraj
760-521-7934
Sent from my iPhone

On May 3, 2010, at 3:46 AM, "Jones LtCol David  M" <david.m.jones5@usmc.mil  > wrote:

> Counsel,
>
> I am not aware of my previously litigating witness issues via an 802 
> conference.  I certainly didn't anticipate doing that in this case.
>
> The government is still concerned with:
>    1.  The defense answering the motions so they know if the defense 
> will be objecting under MRE 106;
>    2.  The denial of defense requested witnesses;
>    3.  What expert witnesses have been approved and if there are 
> contracts in place to fund them.
> Numbers 2 and 3 are of most concern to me.  It was my understanding 
> that we would have all of the expert witness issues cleared up so that 
> we could litigate or not on 13-14 May.  The defense thinks the experts 
> have been granted, the government isn't sure.
>
> My concern is that on 26 April 2010 motions should have been filed by 
> the defense for any experts or witnesses.  They were not.  Based on Mr 
> Faraj's email, I must assume that the defense is not just gaffing off 
> the court and that they believed these issues to have already been 
> solved.  But I need the parties to communicate better.
>
> Per the defense's assertions that there are no expert or other 
> scientific type issues that needed to be litigated, THERE WILL BE NO 
> COURT SESSION NEXT WEEK.  However, please put this issue to rest 
> between the two parties.  I do NOT want to reward people for missing 
> judicially-ordered deadlines, but if I need to come out earlier than 
> August to litigate something (in June or July), I need to know as soon 
> as possible.  As all parties are aware, I am the only judge in my area 
> of responsibility and need as much notice as possible for the busy 
> docket here.  I was quite clear on the record that I do not
> want anything to interrupt our trial schedule, for everyone's sake.   
> With so many moving parts, and counsel coming from all over, both 
> parties need to be able to plan on those firm trial dates.
>
> Mr. Faraj, thank you for reporting back to me after your conversation 
> with Major Gannon.
>
> R,
>
> LtCol David M. Jones
> Circuit Military Judge
> Western Pacific Judicial Circuit
> Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
> Office: 645-7287 / 2156
> Fax: 645-2035
> From the U.S.: 81-611-745-7287 / 2156
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haytham Faraj [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 22:08
> To: Jones LtCol David M; Gannon Maj Nicholas L; 'Neal Puckett'
> Cc: Sullivan LtCol Sean; 'Vokey Colby'; 'Mark Zaid S.'; Sullivan LtCol 
> Sean
> Subject: RE: Motions ICO U.S. v. Wuterich
>
> Your honor:
> I continue to maintain that it is unnecessary to hold the 13 and 14 
> May 39a.
> I will respond to their motions as soon as practicable. I just 
> completed a members trial on Friday and am starting another tomorrow.  
> Before that I was in back to back hearings that did not allow me 
> sufficient time to draft a response.  As I said in my previous email, 
> I intend to work directly with trial counsel on the witness production 
> issue.  Where we are unable to reach agreement, I propose we send it 
> to you for a final decision.  This can be done via email and 
> telephonic 802. We can do that sometime in late May.
>
> I will also resend our expert requests.  We relied on our previous 
> requests because this court-martial was never adjourned and the 
> charges were never dismissed.  I understand that it has been a while.  
> Accordingly, we will resend our requests.  Our position
> however, is that we are not bound by the contracting process.   
> Experts are producible as a matter of law and were granted based on a 
> factual showing of necessity and relevancy.  I am not sure how the 
> lack of an existing contract in 2010 requires us to go through the 
> request process again to show materiality and relevancy.  In short, 
> we're all familiar with U.S. v. Warner.  If the Government has one, 
> then we get one.
>
> I agree with Maj Gannon that there may be an issue that requires 
> litigation with respect to the CBS outtakes.  This is a matter that 
> can be resolved in August.  It's a legal question that will require 
> little or no logistical work, as I believe all 8 outtake CDs are 
> available.
>
> I will speak to Maj Gannon by telephone tomorrow, Monday April 2.  I 
> will report back on progress as soon as we're done.
>
> Vrs,
> Haytham Faraj
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jones LtCol David M [mailto:david.m.jones5@usmc.mil]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:56 PM
> To: Gannon Maj Nicholas L; Neal Puckett
> Cc: Haytham Faraj; Sullivan LtCol Sean; Vokey Colby; Mark Zaid S.; 
> Sullivan LtCol Sean
> Subject: RE: Motions ICO U.S. v. Wuterich
>
> Defense,
>
> Your response?
>
> R,
>
> LtCol David M. Jones
> Circuit Military Judge
> Western Pacific Judicial Circuit
> Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
> Office: 645-7287 / 2156
> Fax: 645-2035
> From the U.S.: 81-611-745-7287 / 2156
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gannon Maj Nicholas L
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 4:45
> To: Neal Puckett; Jones LtCol David M
> Cc: Haytham Faraj; Sullivan LtCol Sean; Vokey Colby; Mark Zaid S.; 
> Sullivan LtCol Sean
> Subject: RE: Motions ICO U.S. v. Wuterich
>
> Your Honor,
>
> In theory, the government does not object to the cancelation of the
> 13-14 May 2010 39a session.  However, the government does respectfully 
> request that the defense respond to our motions by the scheduled due 
> date.  Their responses could, depending on how the defense response, 
> require some additional litigation and we do not want to jeopardize 
> the 13 September 2010 trial date.  Specifically, if the defense makes 
> an MRE 106 objection to our motion to admit DVDs 3, 4, and 8, of AE 
> 58, that could require some follow-on litigation, and as such, we 
> believe that the defense should be required to submit a response to 
> our motion before we cancel the
> 13-14 May 2010 39a session.  I believe that the defense responses will 
> determine whether we need to hold the May 39a.
>
> Also, on 16 April 2010, the government received the defense witness 
> request.
> On 20 April 2010, the government responded to that request.  We denied 
> several of their requested witnesses.  If the defense intends to move 
> the Court to compel any of the witnesses we denied on 20 April 2010, 
> the government feels that it would be better to litigate witness 
> production sooner rather than later, and thus, that too may make the 
> May 39a session a good idea, depending on the defense.
>
> Finally, in Mr. Puckett's response to the Court's email, he indicated 
> that the government had approved all of the defense expert witnesses 
> to date.
> Some time ago, we requested that the defense counsel provide us a list 
> of the experts they intend to employ, and a justification/ statement 
> of work for each.  This was to ensure that all contracts are in place, 
> and active in FY10.  I could be wrong, but I don't think that we 
> received that list.  It is entirely possible that the defense has 
> already coordinated directly with the MARCENT SJA's office, and thus 
> this could be a moot issue.  However, if I am correct, and we still 
> need to renew all of the contracts for the defense experts, we will 
> need to get the experts identified and funded ASAP so that contracting 
> issues do not effect the trial dates.
>
> In short, I do not believe that we have approved any defense expert at 
> this time because I do not believe that there are any contracts in 
> place for FY 2010.  This is not to say that we are going to deny all 
> of the defense experts, but we do need to get all of the paperwork 
> perfected in order to avoid delay.
>
> Very respectfully,
> Major Gannon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neal Puckett [mailto:neal@puckettfaraj.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 2:56
> To: Jones LtCol David M
> Cc: Gannon Maj Nicholas L; Haytham Faraj; Sullivan LtCol Sean; Vokey 
> Colby; Mark Zaid S.
> Subject: Re: Motions ICO U.S. v. Wuterich
>
> Your Honor,
> As the govt had already approved all necessary experts, the defense 
> concurs.
> V/r,
>
> Neal A. Puckett
> LtCol, USMC (Ret)
> Puckett & Faraj, PC
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 27, 2010, at 4:17 AM, "Jones LtCol David  M" 
> <david.m.jones5@usmc.mil
>> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I have received no motions from the defense by 26 April, which was 
>> the submission deadline.  Therefore, I understand there to be no 
>> issues regarding experts, etc. that need to be decided early so as 
>> not to delay our trial schedule.  Considering these two government 
>> motions do not appear to be time sensitive, I recommend that we forgo 
>> the motions session in May and plan to meet up 26-27 August to 
>> litigate these two government motions and any further non time 
>> sensitive motions the defense may file.  I need to know immediately 
>> if either side objects to this and if so, why.
>>
>> R,
>>
>> LtCol David M. Jones
>> Circuit Military Judge
>> Western Pacific Judicial Circuit
>> Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
>> Office: 645-7287 / 2156
>> Fax: 645-2035
>> From the U.S.: 81-611-745-7287 / 2156 -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gannon Maj Nicholas L
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:55
>> To: Jones LtCol David M
>> Cc: Haytham Faraj; Neal Puckett; Sullivan LtCol Sean
>> Subject: Motions ICO U.S. v. Wuterich
>>
>> Your Honor,
>>
>> The Government will be submitting two motions to the Court today, 26 
>> April 2010.  One is to admit AE 58 (the 60 min outtakes) and the 
>> other is a request for a reconsideration of a previous ruling related 
>> to crime scene photographs and their admissibility.
>>
>> For the second motion, I would like to send color photographs to the 
>> Court for your consideration.  However, I have to send hard copies as 
>> we do not have a color scanning capability, and the black and white 
>> photos that are attached to our motion are not very high quality.
>>
>> Thus Sir, I respectfully request the best address to send a hard copy 
>> of both motions.  I intend to send the motions by way of FEDEX.
>>
>> Very respectfully,
>> Major Gannon
>>
>> Nick Gannon
>> Major, USMC
>> Officer-in-Charge,
>> Legal Team Echo
>> Legal Services Support Section
>> 1st Marine Logistics Group, Box 555607 Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5607
>> Desk: 760-725-4820
>> Blackberry: 760-208-7090
>> Fax: 760-725-4500
>> nicholas.gannon@usmc.mil
>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature