The defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors have used voice recorders, web cams and video camera’s kept at the front counter to document all the transactions of the business.
All transactions of buying merchandise are conducted at the front counter in front of these recording devises. People named as witnesses in the indictment are documented in these recordings selling items to the store.
These hours of videos and voice recordings contradict the indictments claims, and clearly show these transactions were not conducted in a way the business owners would have had any knowledge that the items being purchased from these individuals had a possibility of being stolen.
Even the Government made multiple covert exculpatory recordings inside the business wearing hidden cameras and recorders. Then made even more recordings and several failed sting operations that involved informants getting paid as much as $200 (some of which the police have failed to turn over to the defense as part of the discovery) this video evidence clearly shows the vulnerability and honesty of the defendants, the later taken during at least 2 months of surveliance from the empty firestation accross the street. Together this collection of electronic evidence would clearly leave a reasonable person to doubt the guilt of the defendants.
During a proffer session conducted in August 2006,(early in the investigation,) some of these exculpatory voice recordings made at the front counter of the business by the defendants (which included the voices of people named in the indictment as witnesses) were presented and played for the investigators by the defendant Carrie Neighbors. Present during the proffer and presentation of the recordings were Police Officers Jay Bialek and Mickey Rantz, IRS Agent Rob Jackson, and Postal Inspector David Nitz, and defense Attorney Aaron McKee.
Not only do the defendants have voice recordings and videos of some of the witnesses listed on the indictment, that clearly shows the indictment fails to assert facts supporting every element of a criminal offense, the defendants also have a saved voice recording of a questionable person or possible FBI impersonator claiming to be FBI Agent Bob Shaefer from the Kansas City FBI, yet calling from a number showing on the caller I.D. as a Department of Justice phone number.
Not only was the testimony before the Grand Jury in the Yellow House case acts of perjury, fictitious, fraudulent statements by non-credible witnesses for the purpose of indictment. The entire indictment is filled with repetitive false writings and impossible speculation as to the defendants state of mind and extent of knowledge pertaining to the actions of the individuals bringing items into the business to sell.
Pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, that the Court dismiss the indictment due to the government’s misconduct in knowingly and/or recklessly presenting false, misleading, and material testimony before the grand jury.
Not only has the prosecutor presented the courts with false information, it is confusing why this purchased hearsay evidence by convicted felons needing a deal was allowed when it typically would be considered inadmissable in most Federal Court proceedings and even borders on bribary status.
How can the Federal court allow a superseding indictment to be added to an existing indictment that was established through an earlier evidence hearing before a Federal Judge to be egregeous and riddled with false accusations, and the evidence fails to establish any crimes have been committed by the defendants? Therefore rendering that the original indictment itself is not constitutionally valid. To be constitutionally valid, an indictment “must allege lucidly and accurately all the essential elements of the offense endeavored to be charged.” State v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325, 327, 77 S.E.2d 917, 919 (1953).
The purpose of the evidence presented before a Grand Jury is to determine if a reasonably minded jury could accept the relevant evidence as adequate and sufficient to support the conclusion of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Parr, supra at 463-64; see also, United States v. Goss, 650 F.2d 1336, 1341-42 (5th Cir. 1981).
To comport with our Criminal Procedure Act, an indictment must “assert facts supporting every element of a criminal offense and the defendant's commission thereof with sufficient precision clearly to apprise the defendant . . . of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-924(a)(5)(2006).
------------------------------------------------------
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (1976) provides:
Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
-------------------------------------------------------
Giving testimony to the grand jury that was "patently false and misleading in material respects and undoubtedly led to the erroneous indictment
The use of false and perjurious testimony cannot be reasonably explained or justified, and the use of such evidence is an affront to our justice system and a deprivation of the most basic and inalienable rights due each of us!
Defendants Carrie and Guy Neighbors therefore move, pursuant to Rule 12 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, that the Court should dismiss the indictment due to the government’s misconduct in knowingly and/or recklessly presenting false, misleading, and material testimony before the grand jury.
As stated previously, the Government has failed to investigate and indicted this case by making deals and failing to responsibly and carefully examine each individual’s actions and each individual’s words.
While the law of conspiracy may be broad in scope, its breadth is not limitless, and the Government must show each individual’s willful and knowing involvement in an unlawful agreement with convincing, reliable and honest evidence beyond mere hearsay and speculation.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that prosecutorial misconduct can
justify the dismissal of an indictment “‘if it is established that the violation substantially influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict,’ or if there is ‘grave doubt’ that the decision to indict was free from the substantial influence of such violations.”
Bank of Nova Scotia v. United
States, 487 U.S. 250, 256, 108 S. Ct. 2369, 2374 (1988) (quoting United States v. Mechanik, 475
U.S. 66, 78, 106 S. Ct. 928, 945-46 (1986)).5 See also United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 46
& n.6, 112 S. Ct. 1735, 1741 & n.6 (1992)
(district court’s supervisory power can be used to dismiss indictment because of misconduct before grand jury, at least where that misconduct amounts to violation of one of those few, clear rules which were promulgated by Supreme Court and Congress to ensure integrity of grand jury’s functions, such as prohibitions against false declarations before grand jury and subornation of perjury)
(citing, inter alia, Bank of Nova
Scotia); United States v. Vallie, 284 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. 2000)
(“An indictment cannot be based on perjured testimony, and the government may not use perjured testimony at trial if there is a reasonable chance that it would affect the jury’s judgment[.]”) (citations omitted).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Guy and Carrie Neighbors hope the Defense attorney's in this case will soon respectfully request through a motion filed on behalf of their innocent clients that the Court should in the name of Justice and respect for the integrity of the courts and Justice system as a whole dismiss the Indictments based on the government’s misconduct in knowingly and/or recklessly presenting false and misleading testimony to the grand jury.
No comments:
Post a Comment