This request also includes the date that each set of notes were taken. This request includes any notes taken during witness interviews, surveillance, or any other investigative activities. This request includes any notes taken by Agent Moore, the Claiborne County Sheriff's Department, or any other agent of the government. Notes taken during the investigation of this caseīefore the search warrant was issued. Bailey requests the disclosure of the following material, pursuant to Brady v. This motion was resolved by agreement of the parties in Joint Notice Regarding Pending Motions, based upon the government's representation of the contents of said files. This motion filed by defendant Bailey relays his formal request for personnel files of the law enforcement officers who participated in the investigation of the case, particularly ATF Agent David Wade Moore. See Joint Notice Regarding Pending Motions at ¶ 5.ģ. Bailey was presented in support of the search warrant, the parties agree that should be DENIED as moot. Based on the government's representation to defense counsel that no information except that previously provided to Mr. Bailey moved the Court for an order requiring the government to disclose any recordings or other information that was presented to the United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Guyton, in support of the search warrant issued on September 26, 2006. ![]() Motion for Disclosure of Rule 41 Information in Support of Search Warrant This motion was resolved by agreement of the parties as averred in Joint Notice Regarding Pending Motions, accordingly is DENIED as moot.Ģ. Bailey's request for a statement of Claiborne County Sheriff's Deputy Josh Russell's written statement. This matter came before the Court upon the following pre-trial motions, all of which have been resolved by previous oral ruling of this Court, or by agreement of the parties, as set forth herein:ġ. § 636(b) for disposition or report and recommendation regarding disposition by the district court as may be appropriate. The potential costs and benefits of these recommendations are discussed.All pre-trial motions in this case have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Recommendations are made that double-blind lineup testing should be used, that eyewitnesses should be forewarned that the culprit might not be present, that distractors should be selected based on the eyewitness's verbal description of the perpetrator, and that confidence should be assessed and recorded at the time of identification. ![]() Three important themes from the scientific literature relevant to lineup methods were identified and reviewed, namely relative-judgment processes, the lineups-as-experiments analogy, and confidence malleability. ![]() In 1996, the American Psychology/Law Society and Division 41 of the American Psychological Association appointed a subcommittee to review scientific evidence and make recommendations regarding the best procedures for constructing and conducting lineups and photospreads. There is increasing evidence that false eyewitness identification is the primary cause of the conviction of innocent people.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |