Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 230 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 4

Carrie Neighbors
Defendant [1] / Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 07-20073-CM

07-20124-CM
08-20tOS-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,

Defendant 1,

GUY M. NEIGHBORS

Defendant 2,

DEFENDANT UPS MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING

[Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 5.1]

COMES NOW on this 26th day of April 2010, the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors,

acting as a pro se litigant is filing a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.

P. Rule 5.1. The Motion is as follows:

1). The evidence or property, in which was seized by the government was not recorded

properly, as per the Bates system.

2). The Defendant [1] has discovered that the proper chain of custody was violated, has

been tampered with, and is contaminated ..

Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing /w Memorandum in Support of Page 1

 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 230 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 4

3). The testimony of Officer Mickey Rantz (City of Lawrence, Kansas Police Officer.) on

(Transcripts of Hearing on 07/18/08, case No: 2:07 CR 20124 CM JPO) p. 59, L. 10 through p.

61, L. 6. Whereby this clearly shows that the evidence was not properly documented, whereby

any and all the evidence should be dismissed, for failure to follow the proper chain of command,

and the failure to record and / or document the evidence properly, in this cause of action.

MEMORANDUM AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT [ll'S MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING

4). The government has never produced the unalterable bates system on any and all

evidence or property seized, only the Lawrence Police Departments logs, in which now evidence,

as well as, property, cannot be identified even in the return to the Defendant [1]. Therefore the

Defendant [1] can only assume it was never documented properly, it has been tainted or the

original item has been exchanged for another, is missing or mishandled through the chain of

command, in which now constitutes tainted evidence. [See ref United States v. Cardenas, 864

F.2d 1528,1531 (lOth Cir. 1989)].

5). The testimony of Officer Mickey Rantz (City of Lawrence, Kansas Police Officer.) on

(Transcripts of Hearing on 07/18/08, case No: 2:07 CR 20124 CM JPO) p. 59, L. 10 through p.

61, L. 6. Whereby this clearly shows that the evidence was not properly handled and or

documented, evidence return procedures were not followed, whereby any and all the evidence

should be dismissed, for failure to follow the proper chain of command, and the failure to record

and / or document the evidence properly, and follow chain of custody return procedures in this

cause of action.

6). The receipt of evidence (receipt for same list) was left at the home residence,

documentation of seized evidence was vague and incomplete, whereby it was not properly

handled or documented, including property and guns serial numbers not documented.

Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing /w Memorandum in Support of Page 2

 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 230 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 4

7). K.U. Detective Michael Riner testified on 08/13/08, he had destroyed his field notes, in

which now constitutes a violation of the fourteenth Amendment's due process and bad faith

tampering with exculpatory evidence to a case, (documents involving an ongoing investigation),

and or recording a true and accurate document of the events during the investigation, or perjury,

due to the fact that his notes have never been produced. Detective Riner was aware of the

ongoing Federal investigations, was being directed by involved Federal Prosecutors and officers,

whereby he had an extenuating duty to preserve any and all possible relevant evidence. [See ref.

Henning v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 530 F.3d 1206 (lOth Cir. 2008)],

8). There are no suitable provisions in place to protect the rights of the accused, as well as

integrity of the case, the burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate to the court that it is

reasonably probable or reasonably certain that no tampering, alteration, or substitution has

occurred. [See ref. United States v. Ortiz, 966 F2d 707 (1st Cir. 1992)). The Defendant [1] has

made good faith attempts to avoid any potential element of surprise to the court, as well as, any

and all parties involved in this cause of action, whereby, the only recourse is to have an

evidentiary hearing and attempt to resolve issues of the evidence prior to any trial to avoid any

unnecessary delay or confusion.

THEREFORE the Defendant [1], Carrie Neighbors, acting as a pro se litigant is filing a

Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 5.1.

Carrie Neighbo
Defendant [IJ / Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing /w Memorandum in Support of Page 3

 Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 230 Filed 04/26/10 Page 4 of 4
, .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[Pursuant to KSA 60-205]

The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document in the above captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first class
postage prepaid, addressed to:

Cheryl A Pilate
Melanie Morgan LLC
Defendant [2] counsel of record
142 Cherry
Olathe, Kansas 66061

Guy Neighbors 11520031

Federal Medical Center
P.O. Box 1600
Butner, NC. 27509

Marietta Parker
Terra Morehead
U.S. Attorneys
500 State Ave.
Suite 360
Kansas City, KS 66101

On this 26th day of April 2010.

Respectfully submitted,

carri~
Defendant [1]/ Pro Se Litigant
1104 Andover
Lawrence, Kansas 66049
(785) 842-2785

Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing Jw Memorandum in Support of Page 4