IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 1:11-cr-402-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. JORGE PETER CORNELL ) ) ) ) )

MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE

NOW COME DEFENDANTS JORGE CORNELL, RUSSELL KILFOIL, and WESLEY WILLIAMS1, by and through their attorneys pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and 18 U.S.C. 3500 and Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and moves the Court to order the United States Attorney to produce the following for inspection and copying: 1. The Government files relating to the Title VI Complaint filed by members of the

Latin Kings with the Department of Justice in 2010. 2. Any exculpatory evidence concerning the overt acts charges in Count 1 of the

indictment, including evidence indicating that Alma Esparza, the Government witness concerning the alleged cell phone store embezzlement that is referred to in Count 1, and any Grand Jury exhibits that have not been produced to date. In addition, the undersigned counsel respectfully shows unto the Court that prior to filing this Motion, he requested access to the information relating to these matters from the United States Attorney's Office and that prior to filing this Motion, the Government has not provided any of the investigative reports or other materials, reports, or other matters sought to be produced pursuant to this Motion.

Counsel for each of the listed Defendants have advised undersigned counsel for Jorge Cornell that their clients join in this motion.
1

Case&:&&cr++,+-.A01ocument&7&8iled+7/-7/&-=age&of@

In further support of this motion, Defendant Jorge Cornell respectfully shows unto the court the following: 1. In October 2011, several persons associated with the Latin Kings, including Defendant Jorge Cornell, through counsel filed a Title VI complaint with the United States Department of Justice alleging, inter alia, that the Greensboro police department was committing discriminatory acts by pursuing unfounded criminal cases against Hispanic members of the Greensboro community. A number of these criminal cases involve cases brought against the Defendants in the present actions that were subsequently dismissed in state court. A copy of the Title VI complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. A comparison of the Title VI complaint to the overt acts alleged in Court one of the superseding indictment in this case illustrates a substantial overlap between the events concerned in the two cases. Under federal law, the DOJ is required to undertake investigation of complaints against police agencies receiving federal funding such as the GPD. 3. Beginning in June 2012, counsel for defendant Cornell began requesting that the Government disclose copies of the investigative materials generated by the DOJs investigation of the Title VI complaint because it potentially contains information relevant to the allegation of the indictment with which the complaint overlaps, and the information is potentially exculpatory. To date, the Government has not disclosed any information concerning the investigation. Attached as Exhibit B through F to this motion are copies of counsel requests and the Governments responses.

Case&:&&cr++,+-.A01ocument&7&8iled+7/-7/&-=age-of@

4.

In addition, counsel has requested copies of information related to the overt act of Count 1 that alleges that defendants Cornell and Kilfoil extorted money from a cell phone store employee (Alma Esparza). These charges were the subject of state charges against both defendant to which Ms. Esparza plead guilty and which the State ultimately dismissed. Upon information and belief, during the state prosecution, the prosecution and police had access to store receipts and store videos that showed Ms. Esparza buying thousands of dollars of merchandise such as jewelry with money she had embezzled. From an examination of the Government discovery in this file which is redacted as to witness identities, it appears that Ms. Esparza will testify as a Government witness in connection with this overt act. Furthermore, during the detention hearing held in this matter, the testifying FBI agent indicated that the Government had evidence that this witness has purchased merchandise for her own use.

5.

Counsel for Defendant requested that the Government produce such evidence relating to Ms. Esparza in June. This was based on information from counsel who represented Defendant Cornell in the state prosecution and on published media reports. For example, published media reports quoted the state district attorney who dismissed state prosecution against Defendants Kilfoil and Cornell to the effect that the state had obtained evidence from videos and receipts that Ms. Esparza had purchased various items for her own use. Specifically new reports quoted the state prosecutor as saying: She told the police a couple different stories, Assistant District Attomey Howard Neumann said in 2008. "One of the stories was that she was doing this for the Latin Kings, and they had threatened to harm her family if she

Case&:&&cr++,+-.A01ocument&7&8iled+7/-7/&-=ageAof@

didn't continue to do so. We were able to findwhere she had literally made thousands of dollars of cash purchases herself at a jewelry store in Greensboro, and at Dillards at Four Seasons. We were able to substantiate that she was spending the cash. All these were public places that were under video surveillance by businesses." A copy of this news article is attached as Exhibit G to this Motion. 6. The Governments response as shown in the attached letters are (1) that it would not produce videos, and (2) the other materials are Grand Jury materials that are subject to being released later. This response raised the question of what materials does the Government contend it is entitled to withhold in discovery since the Government had already released redacted copies of Grand Jury testimony to defense counsel but had given no indication it was withholding documents or other materials under the rubric of Grand Jury exhibits. To clarify, defense counsel requested the Government to inform us of the type of materials it was withholding and to provide a date by which it will disclose this information. The Government has not responded to this request. The exchanges in these matters are also contained in the correspondence attached to this motion. 7. From this it is apparent that the Government has held back some unknown quantity of materials that fall within the scope of Rule 16 or Brady materials, or that it is not required to disclose certain materials such as the Title VI investigation. WHEREFORE, WHEREFORE DEFENDANTS JORGE CORNELL, RUSSELL KILFOIL, and WESLEY WILLIAMS respectfully request the Court to order that the Government provide to counsel for defendant copies of the requested materials, including the investigative files in connection with the Title VI complaint, information and records that are

Case&:&&cr++,+-.A01ocument&7&8iled+7/-7/&-=age,of@

potential exculpatory such as the records and videos relating to Alma Esparza and any other materials such as Grand Jury exhibits that it has withheld from discovery, and that the Government be required to produce this material by August 27, 2012. Respectfully submitted, this the 27th day of July, 2011. /s/ Michael W. Patrick Michael W. Patrick N.C. State Bar No. 7956 Law Office of Michael W. Patrick Post Office Box 16848 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Phone: (919) 960-5848 Fax: (919) 869-1348 E-mail: mpatrick@ncproductslaw.com

Case&:&&cr++,+-.A01ocument&7&8iled+7/-7/&-=ageBof@

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 27. 3012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the counsel of record. /s/ Michael W. Patrick Michael W. Patrick N.C. State Bar No. 7956 Law Office of Michael W. Patrick Post Office Box 16848 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Phone: (919) 960-5848 Fax: (919) 869-1348 E-mail: mpatrick@ncproductslaw.com

Case&:&&cr++,+-.A01ocument&7&8iled+7/-7/&-=age@of@