You are on page 1of 5


) ______________________________

Motion to Dismiss Information/Complaint Against Defendant for Failure to Make Timely Discovery; Alternative for Order to Produce all Information Favorable to Defendant Within 3 Days; Motion for Hearing as the Credibility of State's Witness Rose Adams.
Motion COMES NOW defendant and moves for an Order to Dismiss Information/Complaint as all known information has not been timely disclosed in advance of trial pursuant to the defendants requests for discovery, the government's affirmative and ethical obligations, and the Criminal Rules. Alternatively, defendants moves for an Order for the Government to Produce All information Favorable to Defendant within three days of the date of the order including an order to impose a due diligence obligation on prosecutors to consult with all government agents and locate favorable information, and required disclosure of all favorable information. Defendant also moves for an order for a Hearing as to the Credibility of the State's Witness Rose Adams as defendant believes Rose Adams has a previously undisclosed history of filing numerous complaints civil and criminal, abuse of process, mental illness which challenges the ability of the witness to be honest even under penalty of perjury and/or she does not understand the distinction behind truth and deception, prior crimes of dishonesty, a history of a long standing personal grudge against Defendant and personal attacks on Defendant, and a cooperative agreement with the state offering her immunity from prosecuting Rose Adams for her own crimes, all of which have been undisclosed to defendant or her counsel through discovery and which would tend to taint the witness's testimony as a credible witness. This motion is based on the criminal rules for discovery in courts of limited jurisdiction, the ABA and Washington state standards pertaining to ethical obligations of prosecutors, and other authorities below. Defendant moves for the government to produce the following: 1) The 20 plus emails back & forth between Rose Adams & several of the EAS staff, along with all electronic communication as wel as any communication made in writing 2) Lab results showing all of the results of any tests done on the dogs with the correct days this time please 3) A more descriptive explanation of what video taped audio taped & photographic evidence you are going to present as well as the originals for authentication. It is requested that Grant Fredricks do the authentication.. 4) Medical/Fire records 5) All documents you plan on presenting in great detail 6) Rough notes by state agents memorializing converations with the complaining witness Rose Adams, Jennifer Speelmon, & Mike Zachman 7) Where is the BAC information, it was not included. My attorney does not know what the BAC records are 8) I want a COMPLETE listing of what is described as "any other tangible objects" it is too vague & non descriptive. 9) Any & all communications between the prosecutor, Rose Adams, & any other witness, or complainant ass well as the any & all communication between EAC & the prosecutors office

10) I requested a subpeona of Rose Adams Craigslist account to present the more than 100 ads she posted about me in a matter of days slandering me & defaming me. 11) The credentials as well as the names of your expert witnesses I want a COMPLETE list of Discovery, all of it please. DATED this 17th day of May, 2011. Brandia Taamu, Defendant Pro Se

Authorities in Support of Motion To Dismiss or Produce The governments obligations to produce information favorable to defendants in criminal prosecutions arise from several different sources, including the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the ethical and professional obligations of individual prosecutors. 1. First and foremost among the governments obligations to disclose such information is the governments self-executing constitutional duty to produce certain evidence to a defendant as a matter of due process. The U.S. Supreme Court has articulated the scope of that obligation in the seminal case Brady v. Maryland (citations omitted), and its progeny. In Brady, the Court held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. The Court extended that rule in its 1972 decision in Giglio v. United States (citations omitted) to material evidence that tends to impeach the credibility of a government witness, holding that the due process criteria announced in Brady required the disclosure of an alleged promise to a government witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified on behalf of the government. Over time, the Supreme Court has wrestled with, but consistently reiterated, Bradys requirement that the evidence to be produced must be material either to guilt or to punishment. Most recently, the Supreme Court has defined evidence as material when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different. In other words, the Court stated, favorable evidence is subject to constitutionally mandated disclosure when it could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict. The Supreme Court has never held that the government is constitutionally required to produce evidence to a defendant that does not satisfy that standard of materiality. 2. Second are those obligations imposed on the government by the Criminal Rules, which require that the government produce, [u]pon a defendants request, those documents and objects and the results of examinations and tests that are material to preparing the defense. In interpreting an earlier iteration of the material to preparing the defense language, the Supreme Court has found it to be narrower than the governments constitutional obligations as articulated in Brady. In contrast to the governments Brady obligations, which extend to evidence material to

both guilt and punishment, the governments obligation to produce items material to preparing the defense extends only to items material to the defendants response to the governments case in chief. Accordingly, the government is not obligated to produce those documents, objects, and test results that are material to punishment, for example, unless they are otherwise producible for reasons having nothing to do with their exculpatory character. Moreover, pursuant to the plain language of the rules, unless the defendant requests such production, thereby triggering the defendants reciprocal obligation to provide to the government those documents, objects, and test results that the defendant plans to use in his or her case-in-chief, the government has no obligation to provide to the defendant those documents, objects, and test results that are material to preparing the defense. Defendant has previously requested these documents which have never been produced 3. Third, prosecutors have ethical and professional obligations to turn over exculpatory information to defendants pursuant to the rules of professional conduct. Generally speaking, those ethical and professional obligations do not hinge on whether the information to be provided to defendants may be said to be material in any sense. Rule 3.8(d) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (the Model Rules) states that a prosecutor shall make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal. Although the Model Rules serve as guidance only, almost every state has adopted enforceable rules of professional conduct that are identical to or based upon the Model Rules. Failure of a prosecutor to abide by applicable ethical rules can result in a range of sanctions, including, in particularly egregious circumstances, disbarment. The government has what is sometimes referred to as a Super-Brady obligation to disclose information beyond that which is material to guilt as articulated in Kyles v. Whitley (citations omitted) and Strickler v. Greene (citations omitted). The government must disclose information that is inconsistent with any element of any crime charged against the defendant or that establishes a recognized affirmative defense, regardless of whether the prosecutor believes such information will make the difference between conviction and acquittal of the defendant for a charged crime. This also requires disclosure of information that either casts a substantial doubt upon the accuracy of any evidence including but not limited to witness testimony the prosecutor intends to rely on to prove an element of any crime charged, or might have a significant bearing on the admissibility of prosecution evidence. This case is not about prosecution by any means necessary, and the prosecutor is failing to meet its most basic discovery obligations. The Supreme Courts directed that a criminal trial is a search for the truth. This case is troubling in its failure to produce exculpatory evidence in violation of the law. In particular, ________________________________________, as previously requested by Defendant. If the prosecutor fails to provide the requested discovery timely pursuant to the criminal rules and this Court's Order, defendant further moves to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the possibility of bringing criminal contempt charges against the prosecutor. The heart of the plaintiff's case appears to be that defendant placed its lust for money over the safety and well-being of her pets, pursuant to the complaining witnesses' statements here is information that has been requested by defendant that goes to the very heart of the state's complaining witnesses' credibility, calling it into questions in numerous respects. The information will demonstrate that certain of the complaining witnesses have a long standing and cooperative relationship with the prosecutor's office, and at least one of the complaining witnesses have a long standing and deep grudge again the defendant which include malicious postings to the internet. Defendant believes that emails between the state and the witness and

animal control and the witness will show these things, as well as a predisposition that defendant may have been discriminated against as being of Native American ethnicity. Defendant specifically requests additional production of specific categories of documents including: 1. Rough notes by state agents memorializing converations with the complaining witness Rose Adams 2. All emails between Rose Adams and the prosecutor's office and animal care and control authorities and law enforcement. These requests are made to call into question the reliability and credibility of Rose Adams as the prosecutor's witness. Also, those emails notes may reflect a government offer of immunity on Rose Adams own charges, which appear to have disappeared. This would show Rose Adams was cooperating closely with the state, confident that she would never be prosecuted for her own crimes. Defendant believes that other significant revelations that further undermine Rose Adams, credibility and will call into question the governments reliance upon these key witnesses. Defendant requires all evidence that would be helpful to the defense in obtaining exonerating of defendant, to ensure that defendants receive the exculpatory and impeachment material to which she is entitled, including all exculpatory and impeachment material to the defendants including previous perjury or crimes of dishonesty by Rose Adams. The prosecution just wants to cough up what it feels like in this case, or intends to hold onto things until the last minute. The prosecutor must in its duty disclose witness statements, emails, prior criminal convictions, perjury, crimes or allegations of dishonesty, and mental illnesses and other evidence which bear on the witness's credibility, in a timely manner. The prosecutions position seems to be that the virtue of its case sanctifies the means chosen to achieve conviction. This argument cannot prevail in a legal system that is designed to ensure fairness in the proceeding when each side follows the rules. Our confidence in the fairness of our system is rooted in the belief that our process is sound. Useful falsehoods are particularly dangerous in a criminal case, where the cost of wrongful conviction cannot be measured in the impact on the accused alone. Such tainted proof inevitably undermines the process, casting a dark shadow not only on the concept of fairness, but also on the purpose of the exercise of the coercive power of the state over the individual. No man should go free nor lose his liberty on the strength of false, misleading or incomplete proof. To date, the prosecution has violated its constitutional obligations to the defendants, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and other U.S. and state authorities. Prosecutors have an affirmative duty to comply with the Constitution, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and orders from the court. That duty includes the affirmative responsibility to learn of any evidence favorable to the accused and to disclose such evidence in a timely manner so that it can be effectively used by the accused. The government has violated its solemn obligation and duty in this case by suppressing or withholding material proof pertinent to the credibility of its complaining witnesses and other information previously requested by defendant. This includes all information in any form, whether or not admissible, that tends to: (a) exculpate the defendant; (b) adversely impact the credibility of prosecutor's witnesses or evidence; (c) mitigate the offense; or (d) mitigate punishment. If the Court does not grant Defendant's motion to dismiss, namely, defendant

requests that the government disclose information that is inconsistent with any element of any crime charged against the defendant or that establishes a recognized affirmative defense, regardless of whether the prosecutor believes such information will make the difference between conviction and acquittal of the defendant for a charged crime. Defendant further moves for an order allowing a hearing on the credibility of Rose Adams,

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of May, 2011, ________________________________ Brandia Taamu, Defendant Pro Se