Free Motion to Preclude Statements - 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

MATHEW & MATHEW, P.C. IVAN K. MATHEW (SBN: 011610) SUSAN T. MATHEW (SBN: 012916) 1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1910 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Tel: (602) 254-8088 / Fax: (602) 254-2204 e-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant, RICHARD NAIL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. HARVEY L. SLONIKER, JR., TYE SLONIKER, KINDY JONAGAN, ROBERT SHINN, RICHARD NAIL, and JOHN DESIDERIO, Defendants.
CASE NO. 04-CR-820-PHX-FJM

DEFENDANT RICHARD NAIL'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OF EXPERT WITNESSES (Assigned to the Hon. Frederick J. Martone)

Defendant, Richard Nail, represented by Ivan K. Mathew, respectfully requests this Court to preclude the Government's introduction of expert witness testimony for failure to make the statutory disclosures. This Court ordered the Government to disclose expert witness testimony by August 1, 2005. The Government provided their expert witness disclosures attached as Exhibit "A." Rule 16(a)(1)(G) provides that disclosures provided under this subparagraph must describe the witnesses' opinions, the basis in reasons for those opinions and the witnesses' qualifications. A review of Exhibit "A" shows that there is no indication of an opinion, there are no reasons for the opinions and there are no qualifications of the witnesses, as the document provides that C.V.'s will be provided. However, the C.V.'s were not provided.
1 Case 2:04-cr-00820-FJM Document 144 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 1 of 2

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

One of counsel's most basic discovery needs is to learn that an expert is to testify. 1993 Amendment Comments pursuant to Rule 16(a). CONCLUSION It is respectfully requested that the Government be precluded from introducing expert witness testimony, as the expert report attached as Exhibit "A" fails to include the requisite information under Rule 16(a)(1)(G). See Rule 16(d)(2). It is expected that excludable delay under Title 18 U.S.C. § 316(h)(1)(F) will occur as a result of this motion or from an order based thereon RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of September, 2005. MATHEW & MATHEW, P.C By: _____s/Ivan K. Mathew___________ Ivan K. Mathew Attorneys for RICHARD NAIL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE United States of America v. Sloniker, et al., 04-CR-820-PHX-FJM I hereby certify that on September 30, 2005, 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:

Paul K. Charlton United States Attorney Rachel C. Hernandez Gary M. Restaino Assistant U.S. Attorney e-mails: [email protected];
[email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

Gregory T. Parzych Maricopa Legal Defenders Office e-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Tye Sloniker

Thomas M. Hoidal Hoidal & Hannah, P.C. e-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant John Desiderio Jeanette E. Alvarado Asst. Federal Public Defender e-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Robert Shinn

Michael J. Bresnahan e-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Kindy Jonagan

Bruce Blumberg Blumberg & Associates [email protected] Attorneys for Harvey Sloniker
s/Candace Deegan 2

Case 2:04-cr-00820-FJM

Document 144

Filed 09/30/2005

Page 2 of 2