WPC 2p9A~|n|Ch.'O@f$ϊl'u \0}Ky)E7gG6^K;gv(tpD9X}ޞp^*UI|D pr`Ng৆Գinm+,h7["_1šQ6в+Sfc܆?jm&rD[}L ڳ2Xy۷NR[. @x%4:۠͹(LppF siˋh($BVR^͸bi_NMz"XY.)]Vi- 3 kF<˦ qa w7fӈ2~ UI(b:*J'pڼX:X;XlWb8^x+z5ERW[Sn,Z4rJCimwaWY#UN % 0 U6} N  0gEw@^ S4_s m 1eU  1u  72 B B*HP LaserJet 5,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(Z)$USUS.,  <6X9`(Courier New  9,USUS., d   d (,(#,(#(  AX )1dE01AAW )1qdE#1A1  2 8 3  4 H  5   6 X   7  0  8 h  9 @  10 x  11 P 12  13 ` 14  15  p 16  17 0  18 " 19 @ $ 20 !& 21 P#( 22 $( * 23 `&!, 24 '8#. 25 p)$0 26 *H&2 27 ,'4 28(39$ )!USUS.,     d E E!E"E#E$E%E&E'E(E. ,z.:i+003|x(U$35;AGMSY_1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.H6X`(3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) d&0 d d )!USUS.,    _ XXXX 8TXdd8 CLANCYLITIGATIONGROUP   PatrickE.Clancy,SBN60805 t Dr.DemosthenesLorandos,SBN177644 8 1600S.MainSt.,Suite185 L WalnutCreek,CA94596  Tel:(925)2564600  eFax:(888)8025089#XTXXX# H  XXXXTvXXAttorneysforDefendant    #XXv#PXX#ѳPs#Pѳ@::SUPERIORCOURTOFCALIFORNIA,COUNTYOF__________  l  THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF)  CaseNo.   CALIFORNIA,    h   ) h  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#)0(#(#MOTIONTOCOMPELA,| (#(#    `  Plaintiff,0  )0(#(#PSYCHIATRICEVALUATIONOF@ (#(#    `     h   )0  THECOMPLAININGWITNESS (#(#    `     h   )0  FORTHEPURPOSEOF0 (#(#x  (# (#    `     h   )0  DETERMININGHERCAPACITY<(#(#    `     h   )0  TOGIVECONSENTTOSEXUALP(#(#    `     h   )0  INTERCOURSE(#(#    `     h   )  Date:     `  Defendant.  )  Time: L Ѐ)  Dept: ` ____________________________)   $ @& I.ISSUE  \ 8   `  MAYADEVELOPMENTALLYDISABLEDCOMPLAINING 4 WITNESS(WHOISA_CONSERVATEE_)BEORDEREDTO  UNDERGOPSYCHOLOGICALEVALUATIONATDEFENSE l REQUESTTODETERMINEHERCAPACITYTOCONSENTTO 0  SEXUALINTERCOURSE ?D!   @  II.STATEMENTOFFACTS  |# @* A.HISTORYOFTHECOMPLAININGWITNESS  !T%   (Insertthefactsofyourcase) P#( (  B.RECENTPSYCHOLOGICALTESTING  $( *   (Summarizeifapplicable) `&!,   C.REFUSALOFTHECOMPLAINANT'SGUARDIANTOPERMITA p)$0    `  PSYCHOLOGICALREEVALUATION  4*%1   (Summarizeyourparticularfacts)  + '3 @^^# III.ARGUMENT    (43r ADEFENDANTISENTITLEDTODISCOVERWHETHERTHE 8 COMPLAININGWITNESSISINCAPABLEOFGIVINGCONSENTTO L SEX,SINCEALACKOFSUCHCAPACITYISANELEMENTOFTHE  CHARGEDOFFENSE.       Defendantischargedwithrapeinviolationof  \ PenalCodesection261.Therelevantportionofthat    sectionprovides:  l  0  "(a)Rapeisanactofsexualintercourse   accomplished * withapersonnotthespouseofthe h  perpetrator,underany,| (#(#   ofthefollowing ,|  circumstances:@ (#(# 0  (1)Whereapersonisincapable,becauseofa   mentaldisorderordevelopmentalorphysical x  disability,ofgivinglegal<(#(#   0  consent...theprosecutingattorneyshallprove, P asan    elementofthecrime,thatamentaldisorder  orphysical(#(#   ordevelopmentaldisabilityrendered  theallegedL(#(#   victimincapableofgivingconsent."L(#(# (Quotefromstatuteofanyotheroffensedefendantmay $ bechargedwiththatincludesincapacityofconsentas \ anelement,suchasPC289.) 4   1.SCOPEOFDISCOVERY.  l   PenalCodesection1054(e)specifiesthat"...no D! discoveryshalloccurincriminalcasesexceptas |# providedbythischapter,otherexpressstatutory !T% provisions,orasmandatedbytheConstitutionofthe "' UnitedStates."ThepurposeofPenalCodesection1054 $d) istoestablishreciprocaldiscovery,whichisnow % + constitutionallycompelled.(Cal.Constitutionarticle $'t"- I,section30_(c_).)Otherpurposesincludethe (#/ ascertainmentoftruth,courttimesavings,the 4*%1 protectionofvictimsandwitnessesfromharassmentand + '3 thepreventionofunduedelay.(Inre_Littlefield_  (1993)5Cal.4th122.) 8   2.CRIMINALDEFENDANTSHAVEARIGHTTOGATHERALL  RELEVANT z   EVIDENCEBASEDONTHERIGHTOFTHEACCUSEDTO  PRESENTA z   COMPLETEDEFENSE. H     Aconstitutionalrighttopresentdefenseevidence   wasunanimouslyrecognizedinCranev.Kentucky(1986) X   476US683,690:  0  8  8"   WhetherrooteddirectlyintheDue h  ProcessClauseoftheFourteenth ,|  Amendment,Chambersv.Mississippi @  ...,orintheCompulsoryProcess   ClauseorConfrontationClausesofthe x  SixthAmendment,Washingtonv.Texas < ...;Davisv.Alaska...;the P Constitutionguaranteecriminal  defendants"ameaningfulopportunity  topresentacompletedefense."L" x" x Therightofadefendanttopresentadefenseisoneof $ hismostfundamentalrights.(Peoplev._Mizchele_(1983) \ 142_Cal.App_.3d686,691.)Inthisregard,Peoplev. 4 _Filson_(1994)22_Cal.App_.4th1841reversedaconviction l inachildmolestcasebasedonadueprocessviolation D! arisingfromthetrialcourt'srefusaltoorder |# disclosureofatapedstatementofthedefendantwhich !T% mighthavecorroboratedhisintoxicationdefense.The "' defendantwasnotforeclosedfrompresentingthethrust $d) ofhisdefense,but"wasdeprivedofavitaltool"which % + wouldhavesupportedhistheory. $'t"-   PrejudicialerrorwasfoundinPeoplev._Reeder_ (#/ (1978)82CA3d543,147CR275,whenatrialcourt 4*%1 excludedrelevantevidenceprofferedbyadefendantona + '3 theoryofmotive.There,thedefendantsoughtto  establishthathiscodefendanthadrenegedona$200 8 debt,causedhisstepdaughtertocontractTB,triedto  introducehertoheroin,andhadthenintroducedhis H  nephewtoheroinwhichcausedanearfataloverdose.   Histheorywasthatthedefendant,havingknowledgeof X   theseactions,sodislikedhiscodefendantthathe  0  wouldneverhaveconspiredwithhimtosellnarcotics. h  Thetrialcourtexcludedthisevidencebasedon @  inadmissiblehearsay,doubtfulrelevancy,andby x  operationofEvidenceCodesection352,whichexclusion P wasoverturnedonappeal."[_I]n_Ԁcriminalcases,any  evidencethattendstosupportorrebutthepresumptions ` ofinnocenceisrelevant,"since"itisfundamentalin  oursystemofjurisprudencethatallofdefendant's  p pertinentevidenceshouldbeconsideredbythetrierof  fact."(_Reeder_,supra,82CA3dat552,emphasisadded.) 0  Thecourtfoundthatthedefendanthadtherighttoshow " hebelievedwhatothershadtoldhimabouttheco @ $ defendantandthattheprofferedevidencesupportedhis !& defenseofsuchintensedislikeastoprecludehimfrom P#( engaginginacriminalconspiracywithhim: $( * 8  8"   "EvidenceCodesection352mustbowto `&!, thedueprocessrightofadefendant $'t"- toafairtrialandtohisrightto '8#. presentallevidenceofsignificant (#/ probativevaluetohisdefense.In p)$0 Chambersv.Mississippi410US284,93 4*%1 SC1038,35LED2d297(1973)itwas *H&2 heldthattheexclusionofevidence, + '3 vitaltoadefendant'sdefense,  constituteddenialofafairtrialin t violationofconstitutionaldue 8 processrequirements."(_Reeder_, L supra,82_Cal.App_.3datp.553,  emphasisadded.)" x" x   Intheinstantcase,Defendantcannotpractically  \ counterthePeople'sassertionthatthecomplaining    witnesslackedcapacitytoconsenttosexwithouta  l  psychologicalreevaluationofherandrefusaltoorder   suchevaluationwilleffectivelypresenthimfrom ,|  presentingafulldefense.     3. " THEDEFENDANT'SREQUESTFORPSYCHOLOGICALRE < EVALUATION  z    OFTHECOMPLAININGWITNESSISANALOGOUSTO P THERE! "  z   !TESTINGOFPHYSICALEVIDENCE,WHICHISADUE  PROCESS" "  z   "RIGHT.      Thecomplainingwitness,isessentiallyacontainer ` ofevidence.Thecentralissueinthiscaseiswhether  sheiscapableoflegallyconsentingtosex.The  p defenseisnotsimplytryingtodiscoverpsychiatric  informationwhichtheprosecutionalreadypossesses. 0  Rather,Defendantseeksto"retest"thesourceofthat " information,whichisthecomplainingwitnessherself. @ $ Todothis,Defendant'sexpertmustdelveindependently !& intothemindofthecomplainantwithoutthepossible P#( biasesunderwhichstatepaidwitnessesmighthavebeen $( * laboring. `&!,   Defendant'srequesttoretestthecomplaining '8#. witnessonthelimitedissueofhercapacitytoconsent p)$0 tosexualactivityisanalogoustosituationswhere *H&2 otherdemonstrativeevidence(suchaslatent  fingerprints,bloodorotherchemicalsamples)exists 8 andadefendantwantstoretestandverifytheresults  gatheredbytheprosecution.Courtsroutinelygrant H  theserequestsandtheinstantcaseshouldbeno   exception.(Peoplev.DeLaPlane(1979)88_Cal.App_.3d X   223.)  0    AlthoughPenalCodesection1112preventsavictim h  inasexualassaultcasefrombeingforcedtosubmitto @  apsychiatricorpsychologicalevaluationforpurposes x  ofassessinghercredibility,Defendantdoesnotseek P suchexaminationforthatproscribedpurpose.Assuch,  whetherornotthecomplainingwitnessmustundergosuch ` examinationasrequestedbythedefenseiswithinthis  Court'sdiscretion.(Peoplev.Taylor(1986)180  p _Cal.App_.3d622,634635.)Thefactualrecordhere  justifiesthisCourt'sexerciseofitsdiscretionto 0  ordertherequestedpsychiatricorpsychological " examination.(Setforthfactualargumentshowingtrial @ $ courtshouldorderexaminyourcase.Forexample, !& previoustestinghasnotbeencomprehensiveand/or P#( recentandhasnotincludedtestsyouwantyourexpert $( * toadminister.)y: `&!,   Adefendant'srighttoprepareaneffectivedefense '8#. andreceiveafairtrialentitleshimtoobtainin p)$0 pretrialdiscoveryallrelevantandreasonably *H&2 accessibleinformation.(Craigv.MunicipalCourt  (1975)100CA3d69;_Pitchess_Ԁv.SuperiorCourt(1974)11 8 Cal3d531.)Unlessthereissomelegitimateneedfor  confidentiality,thegovernmenthasnointerestin H  denyingadefendantaccesstoallevidencethatcan   throwlightontheissuesinthecase.Peoplev.Riser X   (1956)47Cal.2d566,586;cert.den.353US930(1957).  0  Therefore,thecourtshouldorderthecomplainant's h  conservatortopermitapsychologicalevaluationbythe @  defenseexpert. x    _Izagaga_Ԁv.SuperiorCourt(1991)34Cal3d356,374 P isinstructive.Inthatcase,thecourtdiscussedthe  reciprocalnatureofdiscoveryandheldthata ` defendant'sConstitutionalrights(dueprocess,self  incrimination,effectiveassistanceofcounsel,  p disclosureofexculpatoryinformationinthehandsof  theprosecution)arenotviolatedbyPenalCodesection 0  1054.Thecourtcomparedthediscoverydutiesofthe " prosecutionwiththoseofthedefendant,andconcluded @ $ that, "'Ifthereistobeanyimbalanceinthediscovery !& rights,itshouldworkinthedefendant'sfavor.'"  P#(   TheCourtmustrealizethattheState,represented $( * bytheDistrictAttorneyandthePublicGuardian's `&!, Office,hasthecomplainingwitnesstotallywithinits '8#. control.TheStatemakeshermajordecisions,supplies p)$0 herwithnecessities,andbringsthislegalactionnot *H&2 thecomplainingwitness.Giventhesefacts,any  possiblyexculpatoryevidencewithintheState's 8 possession(andthatincludesthecomplainingwitness  herself)mustbesharedwiththedefense,asrecognized H  inalandmarkfederalcase,Bradyv.Maryland(1963)373   US83,83SC1194,10LED2d215.Thecourtshould X   thereforegrantthismotionforapsychologicalre  0  evaluation. h    4.THECOURTHASTHEPOWERTOREQUIREA   COMPLAINING# z    *   #WITNESSTOUNDERGOEITHERPHYSICALOR x  PSYCHIATRIC_$ z $__$  $__$ * $EXAMINATIONS._ <    AccordingtoPeoplev._Nokes_(1986)183CA3d468,  thecourthastheauthoritytoauthorizeaphysical L examinationofanallegedvictimofsexualabuse.Atwo $ stepanalysismustbeusedindeterminingwhetherto \ orderaphysicalexam.First,probablecausemustexist 4 thatrelevantevidencewillbeobtained.Second,the l courtmustbalancethedefendant'sneedfortheevidence D! withthedegreeofintrusioncausedtothewitness. |#   In_Nokes_theappellatecourtruledthatthetrial !T% courtcouldproperlyrefusetoorderminorfemale "' victimstoundergovaginaland/orrectalexaminationsin $d) asexualassaultcaseif,initsdiscretion,itbelieved % + thedangerofpsychologicalharmtobeverygreat. $'t"- (Id.,atpp.4778479.)Thepropositionhereisthat (#/ witnesses"shouldhave...thesameFourthAmendment 4*%1 protectionagainstgovernmentalintrusionintotheir + '3 bodiesthatdefendantsincriminalcaseshave."(People  v.Browning(1980)108CA3d117,124) 8   Byanalogy,thecourtalsohasthepowerto  authorizepsychologicalevaluationsofawitness.Such H  anexaminationisconductedthroughverbalquestioning   anddoesnotinvolveabodilyintrusionoraFourth X   Amendmentsearchandseizure,unlikethe_Nokes_or  0  Browningcases. h    Therefore,therightofthedefendantinthiscase @  toaskthecourttoorderpsychologicaltestingofthe x  allegedvictimshouldbeweighedagainstherFourth P Amendmentrightofunreasonablesearchesandseizures.  Sincenobodilyintrusionorsearchisrequired,the ` defendant'srequestedordershouldbegranted.    5. " FEDERALCASELAWPERMITSTHEPROBINGOFTHE  p ALLEGED% "  z   %VICTIM'SPSYCHIATRICHISTORY,WHERESUCHHISTORY 4 MAY& "  z   &AFFECTEITHERHERABILITYTOTESTIFYORHERCAPACITY  TO_'   " 'GIVE_ԀLEGALCONSENT.  l   Adefendanthasaconstitutionalright,underthe D! SixthAmendment,tobeabletoadequatelycrossexamine |# awitness,including"...therighttoexposetothe !T% jurythefactsfromwhichjurors,assole_triers_Ԁoffact "' andcredibility,couldapproximatelydrawinferences $d) relatingtothereliabilityofthewitness."Davisv. % + Alaska(1973)415US308,318;_Rinaker_Ԁv.SuperiorCourt $'t"- (1998)62_Cal.App_.4th155,165. (#/   Itisproperforanaccusedtoshowthata 4*%1 witness'stestimonywastheproductofamentalillness + '3 (orbyanalogyforthiscase,theproductofa  developmentaldisability).(U.S.v.Lindstrom(4Cir. 8 1983)698F2d1154.)Lindstrominvolvedmailfraud  charges.Thereviewingcourtfoundreversibleerror H  wherethedefendantwasdeniedaccesstopsychiatric   informationsuggestingthatawitnesssufferedfrom X   delusionsorbias.  0    Adefendantalsohastherighttoshowthatthe h  allegedvictimpossessedthecapacitytoconsentto @  sexualacts,orthatthedefendantpossesseda x  reasonablebeliefthatshepossessedsuchcapacity. P (Peoplev.Dolly(1966)239CA2d143,146.)Dolly  concernedarapechargewherethecomplainantallegedly ` lackedmentalcapacitytogiveconsent,sinceshe  comprehendednothingaboutsexnorwherebabiescame  p from.Evenunderthesefacts,thecourtheldthata  defendantcouldproperlysubmitevidencetosupporthis 0  theoryofcapacitytoconsent.(Id.,atp.146.)The " accused'sevidencewouldpresumablyhaveincluded @ $ psychiatrictestingofthevictimhoweverthedefendant !& inDollydeclinedtotestifyorpresentadefense. P#(   B.8  "CAPACITYTOCONSENT"ISTHEKEYELEMENTOFTHE `&!, CRIMECHARGED;THUSTHEDEFENDANTMUSTBE $'t"- PERMITTEDTOACQUIRESUCHEVIDENCEBY '8#. PSYCHOLOGICALTESTINGOFTHECOMPLAINANT.(#/        1.THEBURDENOFPROOFONTHE"CAPACITYTO *H&2 CONSENT"ISSUEREMAINSONTHEDISTRICTATTORNEYEVEN + '3 WHENTHECOMPLAININGWITNESSISA_CONSERVATEE_.     Forthechargedcrimeofrape,thePeoplemust 8 provebeyondareasonabledoubtthatbecauseofamental  disorderordevelopmentaldisability,theallegedvictim H  wasincapableofgivinglegalconsenttosexualacts.   (Includeasimilardiscussionofanyotheroffenses X   Defendantischargedwiththathaveasimilarelement  0  andburdenofproofrequirement.)S`Thefactthatthe h  complainingwitnessisthesubjectofaconservatorship @  doesnotshiftthatburden.(PenalCodesection x  261(a)(1.) P   Inessence,thestatutestatesthatnopresumption  ofalackofcapacitytoconsenttosexualactscanbe ` drawnfromthefactthatapersonisdevelopmentally  disabled.  p   3. " EXPERTTESTIMONYISREQUIREDTOASSISTTHEJURY  INDETERMININGTHEMEANINGSOFSEXUAL"CONSENT"AND "  l "INCAPABLE_...((OF_ԀGIVINGLEGALCONSENT." 0    Incriminalprosecutionswhereconsentisanissue, " "consentisdefinedtomeanpositivecooperationinact @ $ orattitudepursuanttoanexerciseoffreewill.The !& personmustactfreelyandvoluntarilyandhave P#( knowledgeofthenatureoftheactortransaction $( * involved."(PenalCodesection261.6;Peoplev. `&!, Gonzalez(1995)33_Cal.App_.4th1440.) '8#.   Accordingto_CALJIC_Ԁ1.23.1,inordertohave p)$0 capacitytogivelegalconsent,aperson"mustpossess *H&2 sufficientmentalcapacitytomakeanintelligentchoice  whetherornottodosomethingproposedbyanother 8 person."    Thedeterminationofwhetheracomplainingwitness H  had"sufficientmentalcapacity"atthetimeofthe   allegedincidentsisaquestionforthetrieroffact. X   (Peoplev._Mobley_(1999)72_Cal.App_.4th761,85  0  _Cal.Rptr_.2d474,490.)Suchissueisnotwithinthe h  commonexperienceofmostjurymembers,soexpert @  testimonywouldbeadmissibleperEvidenceCodesection x  801.(Peoplev.Lewis(1977)75_Cal.App_.3d513,518 P 519,citedwithapprovalinPeoplev.Torres(1995)33  _Cal.App_.4th37,46.)Ifonlytheprosecutionisallowed ` topresentitsexpertsanditsrecenttestresults,  Defendantwillbegreatlyprejudicedandunabletomount  p aneffectivedefense.    4. " THEDEVELOPMENTALLYDISABLEDHAVEBEENHELDTO 0  POSSESSLEGALCAPACITYTOGIVECONSENTINOTHERAREASOF D! CRIMINALLAW. "    "   Ananalogyisuseful.Courtshavealreadywrestled @ $ withtheissueofwhetheramentallyretardedpersonwas !& capableofvoluntarilyconsentingtowaivehisMiranda P#( righttoremainsilent.InthecaseofColoradov. $( * _Connelly_(1986)479US157,theUnitedStatesSupreme `&!, Courtruledthatthementalconditionofasuspectwas '8#. insufficient,byitself,torenderastatement p)$0 "involuntary."(AlsoseePeoplevKelly(1990)51Cal.3d *H&2 931,951.)Thusadevelopmentallydisabledpersonhas  "capacity"toconsenttoawaiverofhisFifthAmendment 8 rights,aslongashisorherwillisnotoverborneby  theinterrogator'sconduct.Byinference,amildly H  retardedpersonhaslegalcapacitytoconsenttosexif   heorsheisactingwithoutthreatsorforceand X   understandswhatsexualintercourseis.  0    Inthecaseatbar,thecomplainingwitnesshas h  statedseveraltimesthatnophysicaloremotional @  coercionwasemployedduringtheallegedsexualacts, x  andthatsheknewthenatureandqualityofthosesexual P acts.Byapplyingthereasoningin_Connelly_,andthe  definitionsgivenabove,whenthecomplainingwitness ` wasaskedtohavesex,andthenagreedtodoso,she  displayedallthenecessaryelementsoflegalcapacity  p andvoluntaryconsentdespiteherdevelopmental  disability. 0    Thedefensemustbepermittedtoestablishwith " evidencethatthecomplainantpossessedtherequired @ $ legalcapacitytoconsent.Experttestimonybasedon !& independentpsychologicaltestingoftheallegedvictim P#( isthereforenecessary.Ifthedefenseisallowedto $( * demonstratethiscapacity,thenthecentralelementof `&!, theprosecution'scasecanbenegated.(Peoplev. '8#. Dolly,supra.Dollyinvolvedamentallyretarded p)$0 victim,withthefunctionalageofayoungchild,who *H&2 submittedtosexualintercourse.Herlevelof  functioningwassolowthatshedidnotknowhowbabies 8 wereconceivednorwhatthesexactinvolved,andyet  eveninthatcase,thedefendanthadarighttosubmit H  evidencetosupportthetheoryofcapacitytoconsent.     Defendantseeksevidenceastocapacity,not X   credibility,andthusthereisnoviolationofeither  0  theletterorthespiritofPenalCodesection1112. "  h  ThecourtinPeoplev._Hagerman_(1985)164CA3d967 @  observedafurtherdistinctioninregardtoPenalCode x  section1112,holdingthatevenwhenacourtordered P psychiatricexaminationisnotappropriate,psychiatric  testimonyisstillpermitted.Thedefensecontends, ` however,thatinthiscasebothanexaminationand  testimonyofapsychiatricnaturearerequiredpursuant  p totheforegoingauthorities.Thementalstateofthe  complainingwitnessinasexcaseisstillaproper 0  subjectofinquiry.(Id.,atpp.974975.) " @$ IV.CONCLUSION  !&   Acomplainingwitnessinasexualabusecasemaybe P#( orderedtoundergoanpsychologicalevaluationwherethe $( * purposeofthetestingistodeterminewhetherheorshe `&!, hadthecapacitytolegallyconsenttothesexualacts '8#. inquestion.Thecourtmustallowthedefendantto p)$0 negatethe"capacity"and"consent"elementsofthe *H&2 crimescharged,evenwhenthecomplainantisa  _conservatee_Ԁwhoisdevelopmentallydisabled.PenalCode 8 section1112doesnotbarthistesting,becausethe  defendant'spurposeisnottoattackthecredibilityof H  theallegedvictim.     ThePeoplehavealreadysubjectedthecomplaining X   witnessto(describetesting)Ԁconcerningtheissueof  0  hercapacitytoconsent.Considerationsofdueprocess h  demandthatDefendantbegiventhesameopportunityto @  gatherevidencetosupporttheconsentdefense. x    Dated: P    "  z    *   Respectfullysubmitted,  0  0" (#(#0z " (#" (#0z (#z (#0*(#(#0*(#*(#__________________________$(#(#    "  z    *      "  z    *   AttorneyforDefendant#XXP##XTXXXH#