Nash and Jarrell, in a second request, ask for access to the prosecution’s evidence pursuant to Rule 16(a). In that request, the defense team is asking for any and all evidence by the prosecution, including any written or recorded statements from Molen as a result of interrogation or his testimony before a grand jury, a copy of Molen’s prior criminal record, books, papers, documents, “tangible objects, buildings, places” and more, all of which are in the possession of the U.S. that may be important to the defense team’s preparation for the case, results of reports of physical and/or mental exams, and written summaries of any testimony the U.S. plans to use against Molen.
The motion also asks that any additional evidence uncovered by the prosecution promptly be made accessible to the defense.
Also filed on Wednesday was a request by Nash and Jarrell that prosecutors “ ... provide reasonable notice in advance of trial to counsel for defendant of the general nature of any evidence the government intends to introduce at trial pursuant to Rule 404(b) ...”
In Molen’s case, evidence introduced under 404(b) is evidence which may point to other similar alleged acts carried out by Molen in incidents separate from the two the federal indictments stem from.
Although Molen isn’t going to trial for those alleged incidents, U.S. prosecutors can attempt to establish some type of pattern suggesting a history of similar behavior through 404(b) evidence.
Although no mention has been made of what the 404(b) evidence may be, Molen has become entangled in civil lawsuits in the past based on accusations that he’d used excessive force on alleged victims.
Whitaker filed a civil lawsuit against Molen in 2010 stemming from the Oct. 2009 incident mentioned in the federal indictment. The lawsuit was filed in early October 2010 and was resolved and dismissed in federal court in February 2011.