Comes the Defendant, Daniel Lewis Lee, and for his Ex Parte Motion for Subpoena for Production of Federal Bureau of Prison Information, states:
1. One of the issues that becomes extremely important in the penalty phase of a death penalty case is that of "future dangerousness" of the convicted defendant.
2. There is information that can be obtained from the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") which is or may be relevant to the issue of future dangerousness, and the Court is requested to cause the issuance of a subpoena to the BOP requesting this information, and causing it to be made available to the defense team.
3. Specifically, BOP has compiled data in a "Key Indicator Strategic Support Program" ("KISS"), which is distributed monthly within the BOP system. Defendant requests all KISS summaries compiled over the past three years. Upon information and belief, the information is contained on a CD, and contains broad statistical information regarding BOP, including disciplinary offense data. This data, used routinely by the BOP, could be helpful to the defendant’s expert(s) in performing an analysis of different variables that can be applied to future dangerousness assessments.
4. An individual named Miles Harer has provided internal BOP briefings, workshops, presentations, lectures, and in-services regarding inmate misconduct and disciplinary offenses. Defendant requests that the Court cause a subpoena to be issued to BOP for copies of all handouts, articles, and audio or videotapes of these presentations.
5. Defendant further requests base rate information regarding the frequency of inmate-on-inmate assaults and inmate-on-guard assaults at federal high security facilities, both with and without a weapon. If available to BOP, this information should separate the assaults by the degree of injury which resulted, and by all demographical data available, including age, length of sentence, and the most serious offense of the conviction.
6. Defendant further requests the specific instances of individuals being directly committed from the courts to ADX Florence, Colorado, as compared to those inmates who have been placed there since the facility’s opening by transfer, and those who were originally placed at ADX Florence, but ultimately transferred to other facilities. Upon information and belief, ADX has identified 14.2% of its inmate population as persons in need of greater security and increased monitoring. Specific cases involved in this placement should be identified with descriptive rationale for exactly what was occurring that caused these inmates to be transferred.
7. Because the Defendant’s expert will base at least a portion of his risk assessment/future dangerousness evaluation on BOP capabilities to limit serious inmate violence by confinement to ADX Florence, Defendant requests any data available concerning disciplinary offenses, particularly assaults within that facility from its first receipt of inmates in November 1994 to date. This data should be identified by the time interval of its collection and, if available, the average inmate census of the inmate group from which the data is compiled. If data is available which compares the frequency of assaults within ADX Florence and those in an open penitentiary setting, that specific data is also requested.
8. Defendant requests a list of all security measures undertaken at ADX Florence to reduce the likelihood of weapons access after an incident in which an inmate removed a steel rod from a typewriter and attempted to stab a guard with the rod.
9. Defendant requests information from BOP regarding the housing of inmates who have been convicted of murder, indicating how many such inmates are currently at each of the various security levels of confinement.
10. Defendant requests the following information with regard to ADX Florence:
a) how many inmates have entered ADX Florence from November 1994 to date?
b) how many inmates have been released from ADX Florence to the BOP general population?
c) how many of the ADX Florence releases, if any, have been returned to ADX Florence, and for what reasons?
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Daniel Lewis Lee, prays that his Motion be granted.