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