Ta" (1m? 91m." inrTHE CIRCUIT CCURT or THE CITY or ST. LUUIS STRTE or g? i?t a STRTE or t?t[?u may? Plaintiff, #m?Ni VS . r) Cauee Ne. Cause No, Cauee We. 1322-CR0527B Mm Cut! RICHIE SLEUSE, TERRY JURURR, SCUTT, Defendante. CERTIFICATION OF QUESTION I, Diane C. Huth, a Certified Court Reporter and thary Public in and for the State of hereby certify that pureuant to Notice the depoeition of John Andereon, wae taken befcre me commencing at 1:30 November 7, 201a, at the Office of the Circuit Attorney, 1114 Market Street, Suite 400, in the City cf St. Louie, State of and that certain oral queetione Were pronounced and certain anewerS given; and certain queetione were propounded which were not anewered as follows: Beginning_et Page_15, Line 14: Q. (Eylue. Okay. So let me just aek thie. That Sentence, "Thie information wee ebtnined by utilizing a Preven law enforcement SO 9 #1 in I we LEEIL investigative technique," what dues that mean? A. It's just a preven investigative teel that ebvieusly you're geing ts have te Q. What is? MS. ENGELHARDT: Can you answer that question er net? THE WITNESS: ND. MS. ENGELHARDT: Okay. Be that will have Q. (By Ms. Eeesley) Why net? MS. ENGELHARDT: to be certified -- A. That's semething fer yen guys to MS. ENGELHARDT: The question will have te be certified and we're going ta have te address this in a metien. Q- (By Ms. Beasley) Okay. Se just tn be clear, yen knew the answer but you're eheesing net to answer it? A. I'm not eheesing net ts answer. I den't MS. ENGELHARDT: Let?s take a break. Let's step out. (Whereupen, a brief resess was taken.) Q. (By Ms. Eeesley} Se ?eteetive Andersen, you just tank a little break and talked with El WW 9103 '93 memqaj Si??'l '13 4?3 Iii-1!? PBIH Ma. Engelhardt; is that right? A. Yaa. Q. Okay. Sa my question is, what daea it maan that yet utilized a Provan law enforcamant investigative technique? A. I can?t answer that queatian. Q. Da you have a reaaun why yau can?t answer it? A. I believe that that partian can he litigated anether time. I mean, I dan't hava the exact ahawar for that. Q. been it have tn dc with a canfidantial infanmant, ia that why yau?re nat answering? A. I guess in the way maybe the infarmatian ia abtained. Q. Qkay. Did Ma. Engalhardt adviaa you not ta anawar? A. ND. Ema-Q IN WITNESS WHEREDF, I have hereunta eat my hand and aeal an thia 23rd day at Navemhar, 2014. DIANE C. HUTH Notary Fauna-Notary Seal State or Missourl. St Louls Gaunty Commission 134530? My Gommtsulon Expire: Jul 1D. 2M7 Diane C. Hath, CCR #1126 Notary Public in and far the State cf Miaseuri 82 at LEl?-i - aLaa 'aa 3mm '18 40 an) - IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS CITY STATE OF MISSOURI STATE OF MISSOURI, Cause No. 1322?CR05277u?l Plaintiff Division. No. 21. v. RICHIE SLEDGE, Defendant MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERABLE ITEMS AND COMPEL ANSWER TO DEPOSITION QUESTION Defendant hereby moves to compel the disclosure of discoverable items from the State, in addition to movin to compel the answer to a question. in deposition that State's witness Detective John Anderson refused. to answer. In support thereof, Defendant states the following: 1. Defendant is charged with 14 counts of Robbery and ACA for allegedly robbing 7 people in October 2013 along with three copdefendants. His trial has been pre?assigned in this Division for April 27, 2015. 2. Defendant and his three co-defendants were arrested on October 29, 2013 after being found. in Room 210 of the America?s Best Inn in Caseyville, Illinois. 3. Detective John Anderson was deposed on November 7, 2014, in the library of the Circuit Attorney on the 4th floor of the Carnelian Courthouse. All condefendant attorneys and. Assistant Circuit Attorney Tanja Engelhardt were present. Det. Anderson was the primary investigating officer on this case, and wrote in his police report that police were led. to Room 210 of the America?s Best Inn in Caseyville, Illinois because stolen property was in the hotel room. "This information was obtained by utilizing a proven law enforcement technique.? 4. At the deposition on November 7, 2014, Defense counsel asked Det. Anderson. in a certified question what the above-quoted sentence meant. (See attachment from the transcript.) The deponenst at times indicated he couldn?t answer the question but would not indicate why, and he and the State both referred to requiring litigation and. --E pejig F1- We" L?i?l 95GB "33 '13 If! J?i-ii motions before answering the question, indicating that they knew some information in response to the question. 5. It is unknown to defense counsel how stolen property was tracked to Room 210 and also why a police officer would not explain it. There are only three topics not subject to disclosure pursuant to Missouri. Supreme Court Rule 25.10: legal work product, a confidential informant's identity under some circumstances, and "information which. involves a. substantial risk of prejudice to national security, where a failure to disclose will not infringe the constitutional rights of the accused, and where disclosure is not essential to a fair determination of the cause.? It is unknown whether the witness or State is asserting one of these exceptions. 6. If the police found out about the location of the stolen property from a person such as a confidential informant, that would be exculpatory information subject to disclosure pursuant to the Missouri Supreme Court rules. If the police found out about the location of the stolen property by wiretapping and overbearing conversation beMeen one eo-defendant and someone else, that would be exculpatory information subject to disclosure pursuant to the Missouri Supreme Court rules. Furthermore, Defense counsel intends to file a Motion to Suppress Defendant?s Statements based on an illegal arrest and an unloiowing waiver of his rights. It is necessary to a resolution of his Motion to Suppress to ?nd out how police found. the co-defendants in Room 210. 7. Right after the deposition, defense counsel requested from the State: the 911 calls, surveillance video seized by police, photos taken by police of victim Pavelieh's injuries, photospread shown to victim. Miller, and. photos of the physical lineups. The defense has yet to receive any of these items or any response to an additional request for these items. WEREFDRE, Defendant requests an order compelling the State to produce the items listed in paragraph 7, as well as an order compelling witness Detective John Anderson to respond to the certified deposition question. If the State asserts an exception from Rule 25.10, the defense requests in camera review to determine whether the exception Lee - SLIDE ?se Manatee - Sam '13 in are - sens rtlieerumraela applies. Respectfully submitted1 Megan Megan Beesley, Mo Bar No. 63433 Attorney for Defendant 1114 Market Street, Suite 602 St. Louis= MO 63101 Phone: 314-340-7625 Fax: 314-340-7595 E-Mail: Certi?cate of Service I hereby certifyr that on this 26th day of February, 2015, an electronic cop},r of the foregoing was sent through the Missouri enFiling System to ACA Tanja Engelharclt at z?sz? Megan Beesley Megan Beesley was '13 in- also - 13353 ne'er -S - sees ?as rijemqaa W?s? 195.5.