Opinion ID: 63
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Motion under the All-Writs Act

Text: Brown did not call an audio forensic expert as a witness during his trial to challenge the authenticity of the Noonan tapes, and he did not object to the tapes being admitted into evidence. Nevertheless, following his conviction on October 17, 2003, Brown, aided by a new team of attorneys, continued to examine the tapes of the Noonan conversations for signs of hidden edits or inaccuracies. On July 7, 2004, Brown filed a motion under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to place under seal and compel the examination and review of the original audio and video recordings of the Noonan conversations. [9] In his motion, Brown argued that further examination, made subsequently to the trial, of the Owen laptop copies had uncovered significant anomalies (suspicious acoustic events) which call into question the authenticity and originality of these tapes. App. at 636. In support of his motion, Brown attached reports from Allen and Owen and an affidavit from James Reames, a former FBI forensic technician. [10] In a Memorandum and Order dated August 16, 2004, the District Court denied Brown's motion because (1) the Court found the timing of the motion suspect, (2) Brown did not make any suggestion that there were anomalies in the jury presentation, which was the only evidence actually considered by the jury, and (3) Brown's experts contended that only the third-generation copiesi.e., copies of the Owen laptop copiescontained anomalies in the conversation portion of the tapes. Because Owen's initial examination of the Owen laptop copies revealed anomalies only at the beginning of the tapes before the conversations began, the Court concluded that anomalies found in the conversation portions of later generation copies were a product of duplication error.