Anjelica "AJ" Hadsell - COD: "Heroin Poisoning"

[arkansasmimi]

Case 2:15-cr-00116-AWA-RJK Document 18 Filed 10/07/15 Page 8 of 9 PageID# 100


in the defendant’s motel room because three weeks before the motel search, police found drug
paraphernalia in the defendant’s residence. United States v. Williams, 974 F.2d 480, 481–82 (4th
Cir.1992); see also United States v. Hawkins, 788 F.2d 200, 204 (4th Cir.) (surveillance
connected drug activity to defendant's residence), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 850 (1986).
Here, unlike Daughtery and Williams, police surveillance did not observe any signs of
the alleged offense, nor did they observe any indication that evidence of a crime would be found
in Mr. Hadsell’s hotel room. Where no evidence connects the alleged offense to the residence,
the courts have found the warrant defective. See, e.g., United States v. Ramos, 923 F.2d 1346,
1352 (9th Cir.1991) (finding no probable cause where surveillance did not lead to facts making it
likely that items officers sought were located in apartment).
Given the totality of the circumstances, the search warrant in this case was not based
upon probable cause and all evidence seized pursuant to this search should be suppressed.
Similarly, an exception to the warrant requirement does not apply.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant this
motion and enter an Order suppressing all evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant and
resulting search of the Defendant’s hotel room.
Respectfully submitted,
WESLEY PAUL HADSELL
By: /s/
Keith Loren Kimball

****Keith Loren Kimball is Wesley Hadsell Federal Public Defender,

represented by Keith Loren Kimball
Office of the Federal Public Defender - Norfolk
150 Boush St
Suite 403
Norfolk, VA 23510

LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Public Defender

 

[arkansasmimi]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Norfolk Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
v. ) Criminal No. 2:15cr116
) Hon. Arenda Wright Allen
WESLEY PAUL HADSELL, )
)
Defendant. )
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT,
OR ALTERNTIVELY, FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS
Defendant Wesley Paul Hadsell, by counsel, pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments
to the United States Constitution, and Rules (12)(b)(3)(B)(iii) and 7(f) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, hereby move this Honorable Court to dismiss the Indictment, or in the
alternative, order the Government to provide a bill of particulars. In support of this motion,
defendant submits the following:


Skipping down:
II. In the Alternative, an Order for a Bill Of Particulars Should be Granted
Because the Indictment Fails To Provide Mr. Hadsell With Sufficient
Information To Prepare For Trial.
A bill of particulars “identifies for the defendant the area within which the government’s
chief evidence will fall,” and is designed to permit a defendant to effectively prepare a defense
and avoid unfair surprise at trial. United States v. Fletcher, 74 F.3d 49, 53 (4th Cir. 1996); see
also United States v. Schembari, 484 F.2d 931, 934-35 (4th Cir. 1973). A bill of particulars
should be granted when it is necessary to provide sufficient information to a defendant of the
charge against him, to allow him to prepare for trial, and to minimize the dangers of surprise. Id.
at 934-35; see also United States v. Dicesare, 765 F.2d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 1985) (“[A] Bill of
Particulars is appropriate when the indictment is insufficient to permit the preparation of an
adequate defense.” United States v. Fletcher, 74 F.3d 49, 53 (4th Cir. 1996) (“[A bill of
particulars] merely amplifies the indictment by providing missing or additional information so
that the defendant can effectively prepare for trial.&#8221. A bill of particulars also ensures that the
charges again a defendant are presented with sufficient precision to avoid double jeopardy at
retrial. Russell, 369 U.S. at 765.
The Indictment alleges that Mr. Hadsell possessed and received ammunition from “on or
about December 23, 2013 to on or about March 20, 2015.” Thus, the charged offense dates
cover a period of fifteen (15) months. The Indictment does not specify which specific dates or
locations during this time period when or where Mr. Hadsell allegedly possessed and received
ammunition. Accord Clinebell v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 362, 367 (1986) (“While time may
not be of the essence in a particular case, it is, nonetheless, preferable and required that the
defendant be given as precise a date of the alleged offense as possible.&#8221. The Indictment
therefore fails to provide information necessary for Mr. Hadsell to formulate a defense and avoid
double jeopardy at retrial.
Without even a bare-bones allegation regarding when and where Mr. Hadsell possessed
the ammunition, the Indictment fails to give Mr. Hadsell adequate notice and fails to identify the
Government’s theory of the case. A bill of particulars is therefore necessary to avoid unfair
surprise and “clarify the specific factual theory (or theories) upon which the government [is]

 

[arkansasmimi]

proceeding.” Chandler, 753 F.2d at 362. Likewise, a bill of particulars is necessary to “prevent
the prosecution from changing its theory of the case” at a later time. United States v. Doe, 572
F.3d 1162, 1176 (10th Cir. 2009). Without additional information, the Defendant is left to guess
as to when the Government will pin criminal responsibility on him during the charged fifteen
month period. Accordingly, should the Court chose to deny dismissal of the Indictment, then
Mr. Hadsell respectfully requests, that in the alternative, the Court order the Government to
provide a bill of particulars in order to permit Mr. Hadsell to adequately prepare his defense at
trial.

III. A Bill of Particulars, in the Alternative, is Necessary Because Discovery has Not
Provided Adequate Notice.
While “denial of requests for bills of particulars [may be] appropriate when ‘the materials
voluntarily provided by the Government serve[] to apprise the defendant[] of the needed
information[,]”a bill of particular is necessary when discovery is not provided or the defense
cannot adequately prepare his defense. United States v Rapalo-Amador, No. 7:10-CR-22-1-F,
2010 WL 2813389, at *2 (E.D.N.C. July 14, 2010) (citation omitted).
In Rapalo-Amador, the court ordered that the government provide the defendant with a
bill of particulars because the Indictment was insufficient and discovery materials did not “fairly
identify the time frame within which the defendant must anticipate and prepare to defend against
testimony supporting the Government’s sweeping allegation.” Id.
Similarly here, this Court should grant Mr. Hadsell’s request for a Bill of Particulars
because the Government has failed to provide requested discovery materials, and the currently
provided discovery materials do not fairly identify the time frame within which charges are
alleged. Upon requesting certain documents that the defense deems relevant, such as affidavits

 

[arkansasmimi]

Case 2:15-cr-00116-AWA-RJK Document 17 Filed 10/07/15 Page 7 of 9 PageID# 90

for search warrants and omitted pages from search warrants, the Government has made its own
determination that these materials are not relevant and will not turn them over as discoverable
material. Mr. Hadsell does not believe he can adequately prepare a defense without such
materials. For instance, not being provided with affidavits pertaining to search warrants leaves
Mr. Hadsell unable to verify whether the search warrant was valid and not in violation of his
constitutional rights. Accordingly, insufficient discovery makes it impossible for Mr. Hadsell to
be on notice and adequately prepare for his defense.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss
the Indictment, or in the alternative, order the Government to provide and file a bill of
particulars.

Respectfully submitted,
WESLEY PAUL HADSELL
By: /s/______
Keith Loren Kimball
Keith Loren Kimball, Esquire
VSB # 31046
Supervisory Assistant Federal Public Defender
Kirsten Renee Kmet, Esquire
VSB # 47786
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Attorneys for Wesley Paul Hadsell
Office of the Federal Public Defender
150 Boush Street, Suite 403
Norfolk, Virginia 23510

 

[arkansasmimi]

Sorry about the lengthy posts, I not where I could upload the doc, I have it downloaded, but unable to upload here.

Nothing posted on the Federal Dockets as far as I can see in reference to the new drug charge, so I guessing that is VA charge. JMHO

 

[katydid23]

I am not sure how much an expectation of privacy holds in a hotel room. The owners have the keys and come into the room to clean and check on things routinely.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Tip to Crimeline :thinking:

 

[NWLady]

I have no legal expertise but I'm trying to figure out what this is all about and what I'm wondering is this...What if it's determined there wasn't probable cause to obtain a warrant to search WH's motel room, which in turn resulted in felon in possession of ammo charge, drug charge, etc., does that mean that those charges would be dismissed if it's determined by the judge that there was NOT probable cause to obtain the search warrant. I'm just guessing here, was this search warrant based mainly on what AB and/or others may have reported/said to LE? JMO and just thinking out loud.

 

[katydid23]

I have no legal expertise but I'm trying to figure out what this is all about and what I'm wondering is this...What if it's determined there wasn't probable cause to obtain a warrant to search WH's motel room, which in turn resulted in felon in possession of ammo charge, drug charge, etc., does that mean that those charges would be dismissed if it's determined by the judge that there was NOT probable cause to obtain the search warrant. I'm just guessing here, was this search warrant based mainly on what AB and/or others may have reported/said to LE? JMO and just thinking out loud.

I don't think they are going to throw out the search warrant. JMO

 

[Vail]

Thank you for pasting all that! You can upload the doc here:

https://filetea.me/default/

So I see what he is doing here, he is basically alleging they got a warrant to search the hotel for evidence of AJ, not for ammo, thus they can't charge him for it.

They had probable cause to do that IMO. If, during a search that is within the legal parameters of a warrant, LE uncovers evidence of an "unrelated" crime, they may seize that evidence immediately and arrest anyone related to the evidence based on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. The probable cause in the case of weapons charges and now possession is knowing he is a felon and the drugs and ammo being purportedly under his control (in his car or his hotel room or possessions). Crime. The ammo and drugs evidence is essentially treated as being "in plain sight" under the search authorized by the initial warrant.


I have linked the affadavit regarding the ammo below, IMO the investigator did her due diligence.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6QHkjbC3op6V19rUWxaeWpGazA/view?usp=sharing
Attachment 11-1 from post #5 in the court docs thread.

It appears the "paperwork" mentioned in the news13 article is referring to the court documents and mail in point 5 of the above.

I am happy we finally have it as a "fact" that gas station CCTV does not corroborate Wes' story. I think LE are waiting on or looking for DNA evidence to seal the deal at this stage. All this other stuff is just stalling.

 

[katydid23]

Thank you for pasting all that! You can upload the doc here:

https://filetea.me/default/

So I see what he is doing here, he is basically alleging they got a warrant to search the hotel for evidence of AJ, not for ammo, thus they can't charge him for it.

They had probable cause to do that IMO. If, during a search that is within the legal parameters of a warrant, LE uncovers evidence of an "unrelated" crime, they may seize that evidence immediately and arrest anyone related to the evidence based on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. The probable cause in the case of weapons charges and now possession is knowing he is a felon and the drugs and ammo being purportedly under his control (in his car or his hotel room or possessions). Crime. The ammo and drugs evidence is essentially treated as being "in plain sight" under the search authorized by the initial warrant.


I have linked the affadavit regarding the ammo below, IMO the investigator did her due diligence.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6QHkjbC3op6V19rUWxaeWpGazA/view?usp=sharing
Attachment 11-1 from post #5 in the court docs thread.

It appears the "paperwork" mentioned in the news13 article is referring to the court documents and mail in point 5 of the above.

I am happy we finally have it as a "fact" that gas station CCTV does not corroborate Wes' story. I think LE are waiting on or looking for DNA evidence to seal the deal at this stage. All this other stuff is just stalling.

BBM

I agree, that does seem to be what they are trying to say as a defense. But it will not work, imo.

If they got the warrant to search for evidence surrounding AJ's disappearance, and they found ammo and drugs, then those things could be related to her mysterious situation. And it looks like they might be after all. I can't imagine the judge throwing out that evidence because of anything the attorney has said so far. JMO

I don't think that someone who is renting a hotel room has a strong expectation of privacy. The owners of the hotel have the keys and send employees in to the rooms quite routinely.

 

[alexwood]

Sorry about the lengthy posts, I not where I could upload the doc, I have it downloaded, but unable to upload here.

Nothing posted on the Federal Dockets as far as I can see in reference to the new drug charge, so I guessing that is VA charge. JMHO

Thank you Arkansasmimi. You are awesome!

 

[arkansasmimi]

I have no legal expertise but I'm trying to figure out what this is all about and what I'm wondering is this...What if it's determined there wasn't probable cause to obtain a warrant to search WH's motel room, which in turn resulted in felon in possession of ammo charge, drug charge, etc., does that mean that those charges would be dismissed if it's determined by the judge that there was NOT probable cause to obtain the search warrant. I'm just guessing here, was this search warrant based mainly on what AB and/or others may have reported/said to LE? JMO and just thinking out loud.

I have no legal expertise either, this to me goes back to the Hearing prior to the Grand Jury. That Judge dismissed the Breaking and Entering charge. But the Pros did the Direct Indictment. again JMHO, if they didnt have the B&E Charge they didnt have the basis for the other charges.

Also, and I have to agree (if it were me) that I would want all the evidence the Pros have for the charges against me. VA wont turn over the Affidavit for Search Warrant of WH phone but turned over the Search Warrant for phone. But they turned over the Affidavit for Search Warrant and Warrant for the Hotel Room.

The Judge granted WH an extension. ORDER granting , an unopposed Motion for Extension of Time as to Wesley Paul Hadsell (1). The Defendant may file a motion to suppress pertaining to the Defendant's cell-phone on or before October 14, 2015. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen on 10/8/2015. (Allen, Arenda) (Entered: 10/08/2015)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Norfolk Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v. Case No. 2:15cr116
WESLEY PAUL HADSELL,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS PERTAINING TO THE DEFENDANT’S CELL-PHONE
Comes now the Defendant, Wesley Paul Hadsell, by counsel, and hereby move this
Honorable Court to enter an order extending the date to file pre-trial motions pertaining to the search
and seizure of the Defendant’s cell-phone (to wit an iPhone). In support hereof, Defendant states
as follows:
1. Mr. Hadsell is before the Court having been indicted for felon in possession of
ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) and 924(e).
2. Trial is scheduled for November 25, 2015. At the arraignment on September 23, 2015,
Magistrate Judge Douglas Miller set October 7, 2015 as the motion cut-off date.
3. The Government has provided the defense with discovery but has stated that it will not
provide a copy of the affidavit for the search warrant for Mr. Hadsell’s iPhone to defense counsel.
The Government has represented that the affidavit (along with the related search warrant and a
search warrant and related affidavit for a hotel room 1) is sealed pursuant to sealing orders in the
Norfolk Circuit Court. Because defense counsel has not seen the affidavit, the defense has been
____
1 The defense has received a copy of the search warrant for the iPhone as well as the search warrant
and affidavit for Mr. Hadsell’s alleged hotel room from the Government.

deprived of the opportunity to assess whether the defense has any constitutional challenges to the
search warrant. Defense counsel and counsel for the Government maybe able to reach an agreement
on this particular issue. However, no agreement has been reached by the parties at this time.
Therefore, the defense is requesting an extension of the motion cut-off date in order to receive
additional information and/or allow the parties an opportunity to reach an agreement on this
particular issue.
4. The defense requests that the Court enter an order extending the time in which to file
motions, to wit: a motion to suppress pertaining to the Defendant’s cell-phone to October 14, 2015.
5. Defense counsel has discussed this motion with counsel for the Government. The
Government does not object to this motion.
Wherefore, Defendant moves for the entry of an order in accordance with this motion.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Thank you for pasting all that! You can upload the doc here:

https://filetea.me/default/

So I see what he is doing here, he is basically alleging they got a warrant to search the hotel for evidence of AJ, not for ammo, thus they can't charge him for it.

They had probable cause to do that IMO. If, during a search that is within the legal parameters of a warrant, LE uncovers evidence of an "unrelated" crime, they may seize that evidence immediately and arrest anyone related to the evidence based on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. The probable cause in the case of weapons charges and now possession is knowing he is a felon and the drugs and ammo being purportedly under his control (in his car or his hotel room or possessions). Crime. The ammo and drugs evidence is essentially treated as being "in plain sight" under the search authorized by the initial warrant.


I have linked the affadavit regarding the ammo below, IMO the investigator did her due diligence.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6QHkjbC3op6V19rUWxaeWpGazA/view?usp=sharing
Attachment 11-1 from post #5 in the court docs thread.

It appears the "paperwork" mentioned in the news13 article is referring to the court documents and mail in point 5 of the above.

I am happy we finally have it as a "fact" that gas station CCTV does not corroborate Wes' story. I think LE are waiting on or looking for DNA evidence to seal the deal at this stage. All this other stuff is just stalling.

Thanks, sometimes I have issues and wont upload. but I will bookmark that.

 

[katydid23]

YES. I think it is major that the defense attorney admits that there is no video corroborating Wes's awkward gas station meeting with AJ. That is bad news for him, imo.

The way he describes it, they both arrived in their own vehicles, and they stood together for 30 minutes. That would have been picked up by the cameras if it had happened as he said.

So the next question is, why did he make a big deal about that bogus story and come forward and change that timeline so publicly? What was he trying to cover up or deflect?

 

[hey-Debbie]

Unless it is revealed otherwise I'd like to think there was foul play involved and AJ did not take the heroin voluntarily. If Wesley was not guilty of something relating to her disappearance, why would he have been acting so erratically? I don't see it as the way a concerned parent of a missing child would act. JMO

BBM:
I am just playing devil's advocate but if he was doing coke or heroine that would easily explain erratic behavior.

 

[hey-Debbie]

My money is on Wes being a gamer. I know his nephbro is.

Also lots of people actually use Playstations and XBox's as DVD and Netflix players now that they basically do everything. That was probably his when he was at home. I can tell you that if I kicked my husband out or he left on his own will, he would take his with him even though he hardly touches the thing anymore.

 

[bessie]

Some posts have been moved.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...rglary-and-the-Jacket&p=12110652#post12110652

 

[Ontario Mom]

Some posts have been moved.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...rglary-and-the-Jacket&p=12110652#post12110652

Sorry bessie, sometimes I forget which thread I'm on.

 

[zapped]

The gaming system was probably to check for any communications through the device. We are not gamers here we have a wii for just dance and Netflix lol. But my best friend's hubby uses his Playstation to chat with friends all the time.

Good point about WH using the gaming system to communicate.

The attorney who handled WHs federal charges from the bank robbery said that he suffered from manic depression or bi-polar disorder.

One of the co-morbidity of that disease is ADHD and there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that WH has it; not after reading his letters.

People here have used the term "word salad" to describe them and a lot of that stems from his comments and his thought processes jumping all over the place.

Theres also a well documented link between ADHD and video games. Finding a gaming console doesnt seem all that incongruous to me at all, especially given WH's age.

Im 45 and I play video games on both the pc and my sons Xbox all the time.