Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:08-cr-00059-GMS

Document 17

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS S. PENDLETON, Defendant.

: : : : : : : : :

Criminal Action No. 08-59-GMS

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATION UNDER LOCAL CRIMINAL RULE 5(d)(2)

AND NOW comes the defendant, Thomas Pendleton, by his attorney Eleni Kousoulis of the Federal Public Defender's Office, and files this Supplemental Certification Under Local Criminal Rule 5(d)(2). 1. Defendant has been charged with one count of failing to register as a sex

offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). 2. On May 1, 2008, defendant filed five pretrial motions: (a) (b) (c) a motion for bill of particulars; a motion for discovery of defendant's oral statements; a motion for summary of expert testimony regarding sex offender registration laws; (d) a motion for discovery of defendant's inquiries regarding his duty to register as a sex offender; and (e) a motion for discovery of notice rules prescribed by the Attorney General under 42 U.S.C. § 16917(b).

Case 1:08-cr-00059-GMS

Document 17

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 2 of 3

3.

The defense is satisfied with the government's representation that it will

voluntarily provide discovery in response to motion (b) (statements) and motion (d) (inquiries by defendant). 4. In addition, defendant believes that discovery motion (e), regarding notice rules

prescribed by the Attorney General, has become moot: (a) On April 23, 2008, an opinion was issued in United States v. Craft, 4:07-CR-3168, 2008 WL 1882904 (D. Neb., Apr. 23, 2008) (Urbom, S.J.); (b) In that opinion, the Court found that the Attorney General had not prescribed rules for the notification of sex offenders under

42 U.S.C. § 16917(b); (c) In light of this finding, defendant no longer seeks to compel the government to disclose rules prescribed by the Attorney General under 42 U.S.C. § 16917(b). 5. 6. There are two issues which remain to be decided by the District Court. The first issue is whether the Court should grant defendant's motion for bill of

particulars under Criminal Rule 7(f). 7. The second issue is whether District Court should grant defendant's motion for a

summary of expert testimony under Criminal Rule 16(a)(1)(G). 8. jury trial. 9. Ms. Eisenstein has informed defense counsel that after her trial is completed, the The prosecutor in this case, AUSA Ilana H. Eisenstein, is currently engaged in a

government will file a written response to any outstanding defense motions.

-2-

Case 1:08-cr-00059-GMS

Document 17

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 3 of 3

10.

Defense counsel requests an opportunity to submit a reply brief within three

working days after the government's filing.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Eleni Kousoulis Eleni Kousoulis, Esquire Assistant Federal Public Defender One Customs House 704 King Street, Suite 110 Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 573-6010 [email protected] Attorney for Defendant Thomas S. Pendleton Date: May 20, 2008

-3-