Free Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2743

Filed 02/25/2008

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 00-cr-00531-WYD-02 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RUDY CABRERA SABLAN, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING DEFENSE EXPERTS ______________________________________________________________________________ Rudy Sablan responds as follows to the government's motion in limine regarding defense experts. (Docket #2729) When read in their entirety and considered together, the disclosures are probably more than is required by the rule. The government has some complaint about every witness. The disclosures are not as cryptic as the government suggests. Much of the prison code and culture was explained by the government's own witness, Mark Farmer, in the William Sablan trial. The jury must understand this culture, however, in order to fairly evaluate the government's theory that Rudy Sablan's actions and inactions are circumstantial evidence of complicity. Under the code, for example, Rudy would not have pushed the distress button, called for the guards or been quick to implicate William anymore than Mark Farmer did for the reasons he explained at trial. Another example is the government's argument that Rudy got rid of the murder weapon, as circumstantial evidence of complicity. In the prison culture inmates are expected to, and do perform such acts even if they had no involvement in an assault or other incident. These are the

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2743

Filed 02/25/2008

Page 2 of 3

issues that Defendant's experts will address. They are clearly identified in the disclosures. Dr. Friedman's disclosures must be read in conjunction with the other disclosures. When they are, they are more than adequate. Dr. Wingeleth believes all three inmates in cell 124 were intoxicated. He believes the observations of the BOP staff were inadequate to make a reliable determination of intoxication. We have incorporated his previous testimony on these issues as well as the effects of a .254 on all three inhabitants of cell 124. The complaints about Dr. Lovejoy's endorsement are meritless and unnecessary. WHEREFORE, Rudy Sablan requests an order denying the government's motion in limine on these issues. Respectfully submitted, s/ Forrest W. Lewis Forrest W. Lewis FORREST W. LEWIS, P.C. 1600 Broadway, Suite 1525 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 830-2190 Facsimile: (303) 830-1466 E-mail: [email protected] Donald R. Knight KNIGHT & MOSES, LLC 7852 S. Elati Street, Suite 201 Littleton, Colorado 80120 Telephone: (303) 797-1645 Facsimile: (303) 730-0858 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Rudy Sablan

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2743

Filed 02/25/2008

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING DEFENSE EXPERTS was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system on this 25th day of February, 2008, which will send notification of such filing to the to the following e-mail addresses: Brenda Taylor [email protected] Philip Brimmer [email protected]

s/Polly Ashley