Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona JOHN R. LOPEZ, IV Assistant U.S. Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Arizona State Bar No. 019182 Telephone (602) 514-7500 [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, CR-03-1098-PHX-EHC Plaintiff, v. Jeanette B. Wilcher, Defendant. GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION TO PRECLUDE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO REDEPOSE CONNIE GILLASPIE

The United States, through undersigned counsel, hereby opposes Defendant's Second Motion to Preclude Videotaped Deposition Or, In the Alternative, To Redepose Connie Gillaspie, for the reasons set forth in the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities.. Respectfully submitted this 27th day of March, 2006. PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona /S/ John R. Lopez IV JOHN R. LOPEZ, IV Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 2:03-cr-01098-EHC

Document 198

Filed 03/29/2006

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Defendant moves the Court to preclude from trial Connie Gillaspie's deposition testimony on several grounds. For the reasons discussed below, the government renews its request that the Court deny Defendant's motion. First, Defendant argues that the government did not notify defense counsel in its November 16, 2004, motion to depose Ms. Gillaspie that she was taking medication for various health conditions. Defendant claims that defense counsel was deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine Ms. Gillaspie on this matter. Contrary to Defendant's claim, in its November 16, 2004, motion to depose Ms. Gillaspie, the government attached a letter from Ms. Gillaspie's physician which listed various medications prescribed to Ms. Gillaspie. Second, Defendant urges the Court to compel Ms. Gillaspie to testify at trial or submit to a second deposition because Defendant's previous counsel allegedly failed to cross-examine Ms. Gillaspie about matters she discussed in an FBI interview in August 2002. Defendant further claims that Ms. Gillaspie provided incomplete answers during cross-examination at her deposition. The Court has reviewed Ms. Gillaspie's deposition testimony. Ms. Gillaspie was subject to thorough cross-examination. The government submits that Defendant is not entitled to a second cross-examination of Ms. Gillaspie on the grounds of perceived imperfections by her previous counsel's cross-examination. Third, Defendant argues that alleged contradictions between testimony of Mr. Carr and Ms. Gillaspie will result in incomplete cross-examination. The parties have been afforded a full and fair opportunity to examine Mr. Carr and Ms. Gillaspie. The government submits that the nature of the testimony offered by Mr. Carr and Ms. Gillaspie does not deprive Defendant of an opportunity to fully confront the evidence against her. Ms. Gillaspie never met Defendant and did not know her name until well-after she made her $3.3 million investment. In other words, Ms. Gillaspie does not directly implicate Defendant 2

Case 2:03-cr-01098-EHC

Document 198

Filed 03/29/2006

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

in the investment scheme. With respect to Mr. Carr, Ms. Gillaspie testified that she had a negative impression of him and that he lied to her. Defendant was able to cross-examine Mr. Carr extensively concerning matters about which Ms. Gillaspie has already testified. As such, Defendant has not been deprived of an opportunity to confront the witnesses and evidence against her. Fourth, Defendant renews her argument that the government's objections during Ms. Gillaspie's cross-examination deprived Defendant of an effective cross-examination. The government submits that Defendant's previous counsel was able to conduct a fair and thorough cross-examination of Ms. Gillaspie. The parties have fully briefed this issue and the Court has held that Defendant's confrontation rights were not violated during the deposition. The government submits that nothing has changed to warrant a reversal of the Court's prior rulings on this matter. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant's Second Motion to Preclude Videotaped Deposition Or, In the Alternative, To Redepose Connie Gillaspie. Respectfully submitted this 29th day of March, 2006.

17 18 19 /S/ John R. Lopez IV 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 JOHN R. LOPEZ, IV Assistant U.S. Attorney PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona

Case 2:03-cr-01098-EHC

Document 198

Filed 03/29/2006

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 29, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Deborah Euler-Ajayi Asst. Federal Public Defender 850 W. Adams Street, Suite 201 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Attorney for Defendant / S/ JOHN R. LOPEZ IV

4

Case 2:03-cr-01098-EHC

Document 198

Filed 03/29/2006

Page 4 of 4