KANSAS CITY, Kan. (AP) — The Latest on the investigation of prison recordings at a federal facility in Leavenworth, Kansas (all times local): 4 p.m. The U.S. attorney’s office in Kansas has declined to comment on a court-appointed official’s report
KANSAS CITY, Kan. (AP) — The Latest on the investigation of prison recordings at a federal facility in Leavenworth, Kansas (all times local):
4 p.m.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Kansas has declined to comment on a court-appointed official’s report that the federal office is no longer cooperating with an investigation into the taping of attorney-client meetings at a federal detention center.
Jim Cross, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Tom Beall, says the office does not comment on pending litigation.
Special Master David R. Cohen said in a report obtained by KCUR Radio that he received a 24-page letter last month from the U.S. attorney’s office stating that it will no longer provide him with information and documents as part of his investigation of claims involving at the Leavenworth Detention Center.
The decision may heighten suspicions that the U.S. attorney’s office is concealing information about the tapings from criminal defense lawyers, many of whom have filed motions to dismiss cases on the grounds that the Sixth Amendment rights of clients were violated.
———
2:10 p.m.
The special master looking into the taping of attorney-client meetings and phone calls at the pretrial detention facility in Leavenworth, Kansas, says in a new report that the U.S. Attorney’s office in Kansas is no longer cooperating with the investigation.
Special Master David R. Cohen says in a report obtained by KCUR Radio that he received a 24-page letter last month from the U.S. attorney’s office stating that it will no longer provide him with information and documents he seeks.
A message on Monday seeking comment from the U.S. attorney’s office was not immediately returned.
The decision may heighten suspicions that the office is concealing information about tapings from criminal defense lawyers, many of whom have filed motions to dismiss cases on the grounds that clients’ constitutional rights were violated.
