Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 193 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
(Kansas City Docket)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 07-20124-01/02-CM
) 08-20105-01/02-CM
CARRIE MARIE NEIGHBORS, )
and )
GUY MADISON NEIGHBORS, )
)
Defendants. )

UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION

FOR DISCOVERY OF ALL INFORMATION IN THE POSSESSION
OF THE LAWRENCE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE UNITED STATES
PERTAINING TO ANNETTE MILLER

Comes now the United States of America by and through the undersigned

Assistant United States Attorneys, and in opposition to the Joint Motion for Discovery of

Information Pertaining to Annette Miller states the following:

Defendants assert that they should be provided with a variety of documents in

the custody or under the control of the Lawrence Police Department and/or the United

States pertaining to Annette Miller because “she may (judging from the nature of her

information) have been an informant for the Lawrence Police Department.” Document

[Doc.] 192 at p. 2. (emphasis added) The United States respectfully submits that the

defendants do not request production under any viable theory of discovery and allege

no facts that support a reasonable conclusion that police or prosecutorial misconduct

 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 193 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 2 of 7

has occurred with respect to Annette Miller. Furthermore, the government has already

met its Rule 16 discovery obligations by providing the defendants will copies of all of the

reports and documents from the investigation and has given them access to all of the

physical evidence collected or seized in these cases as directed by the Court. It should

be obvious to the defendants, from the discovery already provided, that the government

does not intend to call Miller as a witness in either of the above-referenced cases and

that Miller has had no part in the government’s investigation of these defendants..

The only legal basis the defendants cite to support their motion is that found in

“Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964) which prohibits questioning of a

defendant by law enforcement officers or their agents after the defendant has obtained

counsel,” (Doc. 192 at p. 4). They acknowledge, however, that they do not know if such

contact occurred. (“If any law enforcement officer was involved in directing or working

with Ms. Miller....”) Id. (emphasis added). They base their claims of entitlement to all

information relating to Annette Miller contained in the files of the United States and

Lawrence Police Department on nothing more than their unsupported contention that

Ms. Miller “often seemed to have ‘inside’ information about their case and the workings

of the police department that reasonably would be known only to someone who had a

contact or source within or connected with the Lawrence Police Department.” Id at p. 3.

This conclusion ignores the fact that they have not cited a single fact that supports their

contention that Miller had “inside” information or that information about the Lawrence

Police Department could have come only from that agency or an agent of the United

States. The United States submits that there are other explanations for whatever

2
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 193 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 3 of 7

allegedly “inside” information provided by Annette Miller and that those other

explanations are more reasonable and persuasive than the theory of police misconduct

now being spun by the defendants.

For example, given the number and frequency of the contacts between the

defendants and Miller, a more reasonable explanation for her knowledge of the inner

working of the Lawrence Police Department is that the defendants themselves passed

on information to Miller about their cases during the “almost daily” telephone

conversations1 they had with her. Thereafter, if one can believe that Miller was actually

providing false information to the defendants, it is reasonable to assume that Miller was

merely feeding information back to them in later phone calls, representing that it had

come from her “investigator,” relying on the Neighbors’ lack of recall of information they

had already passed on to her.

Additionally, their claim of “inside information” ignores the fact that the Lawrence

Police Department is not the only source of information about the inner workings of law

enforcement offices. For example, the defendants’ own investigators have extensive

experience as law enforcement officers, one a retired F.B.I. agent and the other a

former county deputy sheriff. It is reasonable to assume that during contacts between

the defendants and their investigators, the subject of investigative techniques and

police procedures were discussed.

Based on the defendants’ past conduct, it is reasonable to assume that in their

zeal to vilify law enforcement agents involved in this investigation in order to secure a

3
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 193 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 4 of 7

dismissal of the charges, they now theorize that this allegedly “inside” information

came from Miller through her “investigator” and that only a law enforcement officer

posing as an investigator could have passed the information on to Miller. This is not a

reasonable conclusion, however

As the defendants’ blogs establish, they are masters at taking snippets of

information, inventing stories to fit their theories of law enforcement misconduct and

then publishing the unfounded stories of police or prosecutorial misconduct in their

efforts to have the charges dismissed against them. (See Doc. 150, transcript of

detention hearing in July, 2008.) The United States respectfully submits that this

scenario is again being played out with the Miller allegations.2

Finally, and tellingly, the defendants provide no information, “inside” or

otherwise, to substantiate their claim of possible law enforcement contact with the

defendants through a third person. They concede that the information provided to

2
These allegations and this motion appear to be yet another instance
where the defendants have conjured up an unfounded theory of government
misconduct in the hope that if they throw enough mud at the government, something
will stick. For example, in a recorded telephone conversation on July 24, 2009, from
CCA where Guy Neighbors is held on pretrial detention, the defendant Carrie
Neighbors, says to her co-defendant/husband “I don’t know, though. Parker – nothing
appears to scandalize her into submission,” an obvious reference to the defendant’s
lack of success at getting the prosecutors to dismiss charges by publishing false and
defamatory allegations of personal and professional misconduct against them.
Other conversations establish that, although the defendants allege that “Ms.
Miller is now believed to be hiding in Mexico,” (Doc. 192 at 4), they know perfectly well
where she is and why she is there because they are in direct contact with her in Mexico.
Recorded conversations from CCA between the defendants establish that on several
occasions Miller has told them that she went to Mexico to join her boyfriend who was
deported. Clearly, Miller is not “hiding” from the Neighbors as they allege, but to reveal
the truth about Miller’s trip to Mexico would not advance their spurious claim here, so
they simply tell that part of the truth that suits their purpose.
4
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 193 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 5 of 7

Miller were “outlandish and preposterous stories,” but they turn around and ask this

Court to treat their allegations as believable facts. They have not pointed to, let alone

proven, a single fact that would establish that the requested material exists or what it

might contain. See United States v. Morris, 287 F.3d 985, 991 (10th Cir. 2002) (request

for rule 17(c) subpoena properly denied where defendant’s only speculated on the

existence of exculpatory evidence and court found request for production nothing more

than an impermissible fishing expedition); Peek v. United States, 321 F.2d 934, 942 (9th

Cir. 1963) (No abuse of discretion when court denied defendant’s motion for discovery

and inspection when it concluded that request was fishing expedition” rather than quest

for vital trial preparation information.)

The United States submits that the facts of this case are similar to those

presented in United States v. Spagnuolo, 549 F.2d 705 (9th Cir. 1977) where the

defendants argued on appeal that the district court erred when it refused to order ”the

Government to produce the F.B.I. investigative files on the ground that these files would

demonstrate that the [defendants’] investigation was tainted.” Id. at 712-13. As here,

the defendant did not seek disclosure under the Jencks Act. Rather, in Spagnuolo, the

defendants asserted that they were entitled to the requested material on the grounds

that “disclosure should be required on the basis of either the constitutional right of

compulsory process to obtain the appearance of witnesses or the disclosure

requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215

(1963).”

In affirming the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request for production of the

5
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 193 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 6 of 7

files, the reviewing court found that the defendants’ “arguments are not well taken.

Both assume that the material indicative of a taint existed. No evidence in the record

supports this assumption. Appellants have embarked upon the type of fishing

expedition condemned b y this court in Ogden v. United States, 303 F.2d. 724 (19th Cir.

1962).” Id. at 713. Here, as in Spagnuolo, the defendants have embarked on a fishing

expedition asking this court to order production of documents based on arguments not

well taken.

Because the defendants have failed to establish a single fact that would support

their contention that Miller’s actions were being directed by law enforcement agents

engaged in the investigation of their cases, that the records they seek exist and that

they may contain information favorable to their case, the United States submits that this

motion is frivolous and should be denied in its entirety.

Respectfully submitted,

LANNY D. WELCH
United States Attorney

s/Marietta Parker
MARIETTA PARKER KS Dist. Ct. # 77807
Assistant United States Attorney
500 State Avenue, Suite 360
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913) 551-6730 (telephone)
(913) 551-6541 (facsimile)
E-mail: marietta.parker@usdoj.gov

s/Terra D. Morehead
TERRA D. MOREHEAD KS S.Ct # #12759
Assistant United States Attorney
500 State Avenue, Suite 360
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
6
 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 193 Filed 08/05/2009 Page 7 of 7

(913) 551-6730 (telephone)

(913) 551-6541 (facsimile)
E-mail: terra.morehead@usdoj.gov

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on the 5th day August, 2009, the foregoing was electronically
filed with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of
electronic filing to the following:
John Duma
303 E. Poplar
Olathe, KS 66061
Attorney for Defendant Carrie Marie Neighbors

Cheryl A. Pilate
Morgan Pilate LLC
142 N. Cherry
Olathe, KS 66061
Attorney for Defendant Guy Madison Neighbors

I further certify that on this date the foregoing document and the notice of
electronic filing were mailed by first-class mail to the following non-CM/ECF
participants:

None
s/Marietta Parker
Assistant United States Attorney