RE: Motions ICO U.S. v. Wuterich

[Gannon Maj Nicholas L]

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