You are on page 1of 4

Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 168 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 4

..'\ :.;:,::.~;gF. \
••. # --

[~J\~l;\
"
Carrie Neighbors
Defendant [1J / 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


07-20t24-CM
OS-20tOS-CM
CARRIE NEIGHBORS,

Defendant 1,

GUY M. NEIGHBORS

Defendant 2,

DEFENDANT [ll'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO

THE DEFENDANT [IPS MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING

COMES NOW on this 6th day of July 2010, the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant,

is filing a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [1]' s Motion for an Evidentiary

Hearing, The Reply is as follows:

1). Due to the testimony of the Officers as in [Doc 133] in which the Defendant now

requests to, re-iterates and incorporates the contents of [Doc 133] into this Reply, it would

require the Defendant [1] had a due process right to request an Evidentiary Hearing to determine

on a reliable foundation and was relevant, in which is not so, in which the Defendant [1] can

Reply to Plaintiffs Response for an Evidentiary Hearing Page 1


Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 168 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 4

clearly show in this cause of action, whereby due to the tainted and mishandled evidence,

procedure, and chain of custody, testified by two Lawrence police officers, (as in [Doc 133])

2). The Defendant [l] will stipulate to not having an evidentiary hearing due to the

officers sworn testimony, in which currently now confirms any and all evidence should be

suppressed. "..the burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate that it is reasonably probable or

reasonably certain that no tampering, alteration, or substitution has occurred. " [United States v.

Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707 (lst ci-. 1992)). See also [USv. Roach, 582 F 3d. 1192 (ldh a-; (2009)

No. 08-3029)) " .... a district court, whenfaced with a party's objection, must adequately

demonstrate by specific findings on the record that it has performed it duty as gatekeeper. "

Goebel, 215 F 3d at 1088 (citation omitted).

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the
same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the
government will be imperiled if itfails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the
potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. "'
-Mr. Justice Brandeisf

THEREORE the Defendant [1], acting as a pro se litigant, is filing a Reply to the

Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant [1]'s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing Prays the Court

grant in favor to Suppress any and all evidence due to the two police officers testimony, in which

is an agreed stipulated fact as referenced in [Doc 133] with no objections, whereby the

Defendant [1] has met her burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, inclusive is the testimony

of both police officers that any and all evidence should be suppressed.

Reply to Plaintiffs Response for an EVidentiary Hearing Page 2


Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 168 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 4

Respectfully submitted,

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

Reply to Plaintiffs Response for an Evidentiary Hearing Page 3


Case 2:07-cr-20073-CM Document 168 Filed 07/06/10 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

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

On this 6th day of July 2010.

Reply to Plaintiffs Response for an Evidentiary Hearing Page 4