Response to reply of defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEWESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) DOCKET NO. 5:09CR27-V)

v. ) ) RESPONSE TO REPLY) PRODUCTION OF SEIZED

(1) BERNARD VON NOTHAUS ) EVIDENCE)

____________________________________)

NOW COMES the United States of America, by and through Anne M. Tompkins, United

States Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, and submits this response to the reply of

the defendant.

The government offered, in late-December, for counsel to coordinate with the FBI Agent to

review all physical evidence and to determine which coin(s) the defendant would like to select for

examination. (Attachment A). Counsel alleges that the government has ignored his request. This

a statement indicates a lack of candor. It is important for the court to note as well that prior counsel

(Attorney Deke Falls) spent two full days with the defendant and Agent Romagnuolo reviewing

evidence at the FBI evidence storage facility.

The government, pursuant to the scheduling Order, provided the defendant with a list of

exhibits, on the date specified within the Scheduling Order. (Attachment B). The Order states

[T]he government agrees to provide its exhibit list by February 22, 2011 and will provide a witness

list a week before trial or sooner, if possible. The Order does not require, as counsel alleges in his

reply, that the government must provide exhibits to the clerk for input into the presentation system.

The list of exhibits provided to the defendant complies with the Order. All that is excluded from the

1

Case 5:09-cr-00027-RLV -DCK Document 158 Filed 03/02/11 Page 1 of 4

list provided to the defendant is the actual exhibit number. That was not provided because the

numerical order of the presentation of exhibits has not been finalized and likely will not be finalized

until the end of this week. The spirit of the Order was to alert the defendant to the evidence which

the government intends to present and the government has done so. The particular order of such

presentation was not final two weeks prior to trial, but the exhibits to be used were certainly

determined and that is what was provided.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 2 day of March, 2011.nd

ANNE M. TOMPKINSUNITED STATES ATTORNEYS/ Jill Westmoreland RoseJill Westmoreland RoseCraig D. RandallASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYNC Bar Number: N/A100 Otis StreetAsheville, N.C. 28801Telephone: (828) 271-4661Fax: (828) 271-4670E-Mail: [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 2 day of March, 2011, the foregoing document wasnd

electronically served upon Defendants at the following addresses:

2


Aaron E. Michel

Attorney at Law

3736 Surry Ridge Court

Charlotte, NC 28210-6921

704/451-8351

Fax: 704/643-1004

Email: [email protected]

Randolph Marshall Lee

P. O. Box 77005

Charlotte, NC 28271

704-841-2222


Claire J. Rauscher

Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina

129 W. Trade Street

Suite 300

Charlotte, NC 28202

704-374-0720

Fax: 704-374-0722


Erin Kimberly Taylor

Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina

129 West Trade St.

Suite 300

Charlotte, NC 28202

704-374-0720

Fax: 704-374-0722


3


Joe VonKallist

6743-A Fairview Road

Charlotte, NC 28210

704-366-9008

Fax: 704-365-2109


Matthew G. Pruden

301 E. Park Avenue

Charlotte, NC 28203

704-338-1220

Fax: 704-338-1312


S/ Jill W. Rose, AUSA

4


Response to reply of defendant

Documents

Transcript of Response to reply of defendant