ailsworth

FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

Joseph D. Johnson, Joseph D. Johnson, Chtd., Topeka, KS, Charles D. Dedmon, Office of Federal Public Defender, Topeka, KS, for defendant Jessie Ailsworth, Jr.
F. G. Manzanares, Topeka, KS, Jerold E. Berger, Topeka, KS, for defendant Undra P. Mock.
James G. Chappas, Jr., Topeka, KS, for defendant Kenneth R Torain.
Mark L. Bennett, Jr., Bennett & Dillon, Topeka, KS, Benjamin C. Wood, Lawrence, KS, for defendant Arnett Louise Rice (4) aka Delores Perry aka Arnett L.Rice.
Matthew B. Works, Works, Works & Works, P.A., Topeka, KS, Amy C. Bixler, Alan G. Warner, Topeka, KS, for defendant Terence J. Douglas.
Stephen W. Kessler, Topeka, KS, for defendant George Stewart, Jr.
Jeannine D. Herron, Topeka, KS, William K. Rork, Rork Law Office, Topeka, KS, for defendant Calvin Lee Conway.
Gregory G. Hough, Office of United States Attorney, Topeka, KS, for U.S.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CROW, District Judge.
*1 On July 20, 1995, the court entered a memorandum and order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' "Motion to enforce plea agreements or in the alternative set aside pleas" (Dk. 495). In that memorandum and order, the court concluded that the government had not complied with the terms of the plea agreements entered with each of the defendants by asking certain questions during the polygraph examination which were either (1) not narrowly tailored to measure the truthfulness of the precise issue that was intended to be explored or (2) related to matters beyond the scope of the defendant's oral debriefing.
In pertinent part, the court's order stated:
It is therefore necessary to administer a second polygraph examination, free of the infirmities of the first examination, to each of the defendants. Each of these polygraph examinations shall be administered in the following manner:
(1) The government, with the aid of a qualified polygraph examiner, shall fashion questions based upon the debriefings provided by each of the defendants.
(2) Within ten days of the date of this order, and prior to performing the polygraph examinations, the government shall provide each of the defendants with a copy of the questions that it intends to posit during the polygraph examinations.
(3) Within three days of a defendant's receipt of that list, he shall file any objections in writing to any questions that will be asked during the polygraph examination.
See United States v. Ailsworth, No. 94-40017-01-02, 06-07-SAC, 1995 WL 550062, at *9, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS ----, at *--- (D. Kan. July 20, 1995).
The government, with the aid of a qualified polygraph examiner, drafted a new set of questions to submit to each of the defendants during a second polygraph examination. This case comes before the court upon the following objections filed by each of the defendants:
Jessie Ailsworth: Objections to Polygraph Examination Questions (Dk. 580);
Undra P. Mock: Objection to Polygraph Examination (Dk. 577);
George Stewart, Jr.: Letter Date August 1, 1995, objecting to certain questions; [FN1]
Calvin Conway: Objection to Polygraph Questions (Dk. 578).
The government has filed a consolidated response to the defendants' objections (Dk. 583).
The court, having considered the briefs of counsel, the proposed questions and the written summaries of the defendant's debriefings, makes the following rulings:

Ailsworth's objections:

Question(s)         Nature of Objection             Ruling on
                                                    Objection(s)

1                  Lacks Specificity               Overruled

3-6                Question uses phrase            Overruled
                    "did you see"

7                  Unclear                         Overruled

8                  Lacks specificity               Overruled

11                  Question based on               Overruled
                    Ailsworth estimate

Mock's objections:

Question(s)         Nature of Objection [FN2]       Ruling on
                                                    Objection(s)

3-7; 10-12;        Questions not related           Overruled
15-20               to indictment; questions
                    are too broad; questions
                    regarding the gun and drug
                    transactions should
                    specifically indicate
                    the transactions as
                    outlined in Count 1

Stewart's objections:

Question(s)         Nature of Objection             Ruling on
                                                    Objection(s)

1, 3, 4, 6,        Questions concern matters       Overruled
7, 9, 10, 14,      not discussed during
15, 16              Stewart's debriefing

Conway's objections:

Question(s)         Nature of Objection             Ruling on
                                                    Objection(s)

1                  Unrelated to crime              Overruled
                    charged

2, 3, 4, 5         Time frame too broad;           Overruled
                    Unrelated to crime charged

*2 This order constitutes the ruling of this court on the objections of the defendants. The government may administer a second polygraph examination to each of the defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

FN1. Stewart did not file his objections with the clerk's office;

instead, Stewart simply provided the court with a copy of the letter addressed to Greg Hough, the Assistant United States Attorney, which contained his objections to the polygraph questions. The court has directed the clerk of the court to file Stewart's letter in the left side of the court file.

FN2. Rather than object specifically to each proposed question, Mock advanced all of these objections to each of the proposed questions.

D.Kan.,1995.
END OF DOCUMENT

Copr. (C) West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works