Defense’s Response to State’s Response to Defense's Requests
1. Regarding the alleged photo:
The defense reasserts the exculpatory relevance of the photograph referenced during Ms. Li’s interrogation. According to her statement, the photo depicts Jeff Pepstein in connection with the Oompa Loompas, an EMP device, stinger missiles, and a nuclear reactor. This supports the defense’s position that Jeff Pepstein is a serial weapons trafficker who uses coercion and threats to compel others, including Ash Li, to commit crimes under duress. That said, we appreciate the “good faith review” to locate this piece of exculpatory evidence given to the custody of the S.I.B.
2. Interrogation transcripts:
The defense notes that the original motioned items 1-6 did not request interrogation transcripts. We acknowledge their availability but maintain that this was not the subject of our current motion to produce.
3. Investigative reports:
Per the discussion held at the pre-trial conference, the defense concurs with the State’s intent to release the investigative documents. In addition, the defense now moves to 7. Motion to Produce any investigative reports involving witnesses Kye Evans and Oliver Knight, concerning Jeff Pepstein allegedly coercing them into weapons trafficking.
4. Additional document (unspecified):
The defense is unclear as to which "unspecified" document the State refers to. Our original motion clearly identified the materials requested. If clarification is needed, we are happy to specify, but at this point, the objection appears to lack any foundation.
5. Items 5–6: Motion to Strike as Irrelevant:
5.1. The State’s argument to strike Items 5-6 is both incorrect and concerning. The defense is asserting a duress defense that hinges on the actions of Jeff Pepstein. Evidence of Mr. Pepstein’s history of weapons trafficking and coercion, regardless of whether it includes Ash Li, is relevant. Any document that makes the facts more or less probable than they would be without the evidence, and is of consequence in determining the actions, is relevant. This includes evidence showing patterns of coercion, manipulation, or involvement in the alleged trafficking. It is more or less probable that he forced others to engage in trafficking supports a key element of our defense
5.2. Furthermore, the State claims Jeff Pepstein was acquitted, but omits that this was for a completely separate incident of weapons trafficking, and in any case, the prior charges were dismissed without prejudice. His history remains probative, especially as the prosecution now appears to, for some reason, rely on Jeff Pepstein as a key witness. If the State intends to call him, the defense is entitled to impeach and present contextual material, including prior investigations involving him/
5.3. Regarding the claim that some of the requested documents are held by the L.S.P.D., not the S.I.B., the defense emphasizes that we would love to subpoena them. However, as they are treated as "Top Secret", we don't have, and cannot subpoena these documents without investigation numbers. This is not S.I.B. v. Li; this is State v. Li, and the prosecution cannot shield itself by deflecting responsibility.
The defense respectfully asks that this evidence of the request be supplied and added to the record to keep the focus where it belongs, on the evidence, charges, and facts relevant to Ash Li.
