Reply to Opposition Response to Defense Motion to Continue (pg1-2) The Prosecution served its Opposition Response at 5:00 pm on Wednesday, December 15 2004, giving us less than one day to file out Reply. We, therefore, ask leave to file this Reply on Friday, December 17 2004. We have no objection to proceeding with the hearing as planned as long as the Court will consider this Reply. The prosecution takes a lot of time and space analyzing what the discovery means to them. They do no address the real issue, which is what effect the production of discovery has on the defense. They are also misleading the Court as to some representations, such as, that they have provided reports or other materials when, in fact, thy mean to say they provided them after we filed our motion to continue. They also try to confuse the otherwise clear fact that they just recently announced that they were going to try to bring in evidence from the 1993-94 period. ———- (pg 2-3) The prosecution does not dispute that their witness list was defective. They glibly say that we should have been able to figure it out and that they have “already provided discovery” regarding people on the list. Both of these contentions are false. Â…This is inexcusable and did, in fact, waste considerable time of several lawyers and paralegals on the defense team over a period of days. If this were the only instance, it would not be worth raising. However, it was part of a generally sloppy list that left the defense guessing as to almost one-third of the list which was diminished to a couple of unascertainable entries after a few days of hard work. Instead of apologizing and taking responsibility, they prosecutors use sarcasm and misdirection to try to convince the Court that the list was not a mess. For instance, they smugly say that “_________” is forensic accountant, as if it is our fault that we did not know that. They neglect to tell the court that they misspelled his name (it is ____________). ———— (pg 3) Second, the prosecution misleadingly says that they have provided addresses and resumes in discovery, as it to suggest that we simply have not read the discovery and that it is our fault. They neglect to say that the discovery was provided AFTER we filed our motion and AFTER we spent days trying to figure out who these people are. They make no reference to the fact that the discovery came AFTER the date of the discovery exchange date ordered by the Court. For instance, the CV of Mr. ______ (whose name was misspelled on the December 6 2004 list) was not provided until December 15 2004. They have not provided a report at all. In fact, they gave us his CV the SAME day they served their Opposition to our Motion to Continue (the day before yesterday!). ———– (pg 3) B. 1993-1994 INVESTIGATION The prosecution also casts the production of the voluminous documents relating to the 1993-94 investigation in a false light. They say that the defense requested these materials as if that excuses their failure to provide them at all for months during the pendency of the case. They say they did not intend to call witnesses in these reports but they now disclose them on their witness list. This is incredible. How could they not have thought about this issue until October of 2004? However, even if this is true, the fact remains that Mr. Sneddon has had over 11 years with this material and the defense is now given 3 months before trial, and less, before having to respond to a comprehensive motion under Section 1108 filed by the prosecution. Therefore, respectfully submits that the trial should be continued. Dated: December 17 2004 5 pages

Leave a Reply