United States District Cour for the Eastern District of North Carolina Western Division

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

United States District Cour for the Eastern District of North Carolina Western Division UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 3:75-CR-26-F No. 5:06-CV-24-F UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) GOVERNMENT’S v. ) POST-HEARING MEMORANDUM ) JEFFREY R. MacDONALD, ) Movant ) The United States of America, by and through the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, hereby submits this Post-Hearing Memorandum in accordance with this Court’s Order of September 27, 2012 [DE-305], and respectfully shows unto the Court the following: Table of Contents I. Summary of Argument ......................................................................................... 1 II. Facts adduced at the evidentiary hearing .............................................................. 2 A. Helena Stoeckley at the 1979 trial .................................................................. 2 B. Stoeckley’s 1982 statements to her mother .................................................. 19 C. Jimmy Britt ................................................................................................... 20 1. Personal life .................................................................................... 20 2. The Britt affidavits .......................................................................... 22 D. FBI interview of Jerry Leonard ..................................................................... 27 E. Affidavit of the elder Helena Stoeckley ........................................................ 27 F. Other events prior to evidentiary hearing ..................................................... 30 G. The evidentiary hearing ................................................................................ 32 1. The Movant’s case .......................................................................... 32 a. Wade Smith ........................................................................... 32 b. Mary Britt .............................................................................. 34 c. Gene Stoeckley ..................................................................... 35 d. Wendy Rouder ...................................................................... 37 e. Laura Redd 38 f. Sara McMann ........................................................................ 38 2. Bench conference regarding Jerry Leonard .................................... 39 3. The Government’s case ................................................................... 39 i Case 3:75-cr-00026-F Document 344 Filed 07/01/13 Page 1 of 200 a. Frank Mills ............................................................................ 39 b. Sworn statement of Vernoy Kennedy ................................... 41 c. Dennis Meehan ..................................................................... 41 d. Janice Meehan ....................................................................... 42 e. Eddie Sigmon ........................................................................ 43 f. William Berryhill .................................................................. 43 g. Maddie Reddick .................................................................... 43 h. Judge J. Rich Leonard ........................................................... 44 i. Jim Blackburn ....................................................................... 44 j. Ruling on attorney-client privilege ....................................... 45 k. Jack Crawley ......................................................................... 46 l. Bill Ivory ............................................................................... 46 m. Raymond “Butch” Madden ................................................... 50 n. Joe McGinnis ........................................................................ 53 4. Jerry Leonard testimony ................................................................. 56 5. Exhibit of MacDonald’s statements ................................................ 63 6. The unsourced hairs claim .............................................................. 64 III. The evidence as a whole ..................................................................................... 64 A. The crime scene ............................................................................................ 64 B. The hospital and the morgue ......................................................................... 77 C. MacDonald’s pretrial statements .................................................................. 85 D. Laboratory examinations .............................................................................. 91 E. The trial ......................................................................................................... 98 1. The Government’s case ................................................................... 98 a. The icepick ............................................................................ 99 b. Officer Mica .......................................................................... 99 c. The debris in Colette’s hand ............................................... 101 d. The debris on the hall steps ................................................. 102 e. MacDonald’s eyeglasses – the Type O blood ..................... 104 f. MacDonald’s eyeglasses – the pink fiber ........................... 106 g. Unidentified fingerprints ..................................................... 107 h. MacDonald’s footprint ........................................................ 110 i. The unsourced wax ............................................................. 113 j. The latex gloves .................................................................. 114 k. Source of pajama threads and yarns.................................... 117 l. The pajama top reconstruction ............................................ 119 m. The Government rests ......................................................... 121 2. The defense case ........................................................................... 121 a. James Milne ........................................................................ 124 b. Helena Stoeckley and the Stoeckley witnesses ................... 127 c. The Rock Report ................................................................. 127 d. Jeffrey MacDonald on direct .............................................. 127 e. Jeffrey MacDonald on cross ............................................... 129 F. The 1984 New Trial motion ........................................................................ 133 1. The “confessions” of Helena Stoeckley ........................................ 133 2. Stoeckley never alleged threat by prosecution .............................. 137 ii Case 3:75-cr-00026-F Document 344 Filed 07/01/13 Page 2 of 200 3. Declarations of witnesses offered to corroborate the Stoeckley “confessions” ................................................................................ 139 4. The “confessions” of Greg Mitchell ............................................. 140 G. The 1984 Motion to Set Aside Judgment of Conviction ............................ 147 H. The “black wool” fibers on the club ........................................................... 150 I. The blond synthetic (saran) fibers ............................................................... 156 J. MacDonald’s pajama bottoms .................................................................... 161 IV. The unsourced hairs claim ................................................................................ 163 A. Procedural history ....................................................................................... 163 B. The DNA stipulation ................................................................................... 169 C. The Pre-Hearing Order ............................................................................... 170 D. The evidentiary hearing on the unsourced hairs claim ............................... 171 1. 91A ................................................................................................ 171 2. 58A(1) ........................................................................................... 175 3. 75A ................................................................................................ 176 4. “Sourced hairs” ............................................................................. 176 5. MacDonald rebuttal argument on unsourced hairs claim ............. 178 E. Movant Post-Hearing Memorandum .......................................................... 178 V. Legal argument ................................................................................................. 180 A. Overview ..................................................................................................... 180 B. The Britt claim ............................................................................................ 183 1. Gatekeeping .................................................................................. 183 2. Merits ............................................................................................. 189 C. The unsourced hairs claim .......................................................................... 191 1. Gatekeeping .................................................................................. 191 2. Merits ............................................................................................ 193 VI. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 195 iii Case 3:75-cr-00026-F
Recommended publications
  • Jones (Stephen) Oklahoma City Bombing Archive, 1798 – 2003 (Bulk 1995 – 1997)
    JONES (STEPHEN) OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING ARCHIVE, 1798 ± 2003 (BULK 1995 ± 1997). See TARO record at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utcah/03493/cah-03493.html (Approximately 620 linear feet) This collection is open for research use. Portions are restricted due to privacy concerns. See Archivist's Note for more details. Use of DAT and Beta tapes by appointment only; please contact repository for more information. This collection is stored remotely. Advance notice required for retrieval. Contact repository for retrieval. Cite as: Stephen Jones Oklahoma City Bombing Archive, 1798 ± 2003 (Bulk 1995 ± 1997), Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin. [AR 98-395; 2003-055; 2005-161] ______________________________________________________________________________ BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE: Stephen Jones (born 1940) was appointed in May 1995 by the United States District Court in Oklahoma City to serve as the lead defense attorney for Timothy McVeigh in the criminal court case of United States of America v. Timothy James McVeigh and Terry Lynn Nichols. On April 19, 1995, two years to the day after the infamous Federal Bureau of Investigation and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms raid on the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas, a homemade bomb delivered inside of a Ryder rental truck was detonated in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Timothy McVeigh, as well as his accomplice Terry Nichols, were accused of and, in 1997, found guilty of the crime, and McVeigh was executed in 2001. Terry Nichols is still serving his sentence of 161 consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole in the ADX Florence super maximum-security prison in Florence, Colorado.
    [Show full text]
  • Participant Handbook
    LOWNDES COUNTY DUI COURT PARTICIPANT HANDBOOK STATE COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY 327 NORTH ASHLEY STREET VALDOSTA, GA 31601 PHONE: 229-671-2895 FAX: 229-671-3441 Lowndes County DUI Court Team: Ellen S. Golden Judge, State Court Cynthia Welch Assistant Solicitor-General Gee Edwards Defense Attorney Stacey Bass Court Coordinator Kayla Porter Probation Officer Laci Rankhorn Treatment Provider Jason Reeves Surveillance Officer Revised 3/1/19 1 | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION TO THE LOWNDES COUNTY STATE COURT DUI COURT.......................... 4 TREATMENT OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................... 6 I. PHASES OF THE DUI COURT PROGRAM........................................................................................7 Phase 1 – (approximately 17 weeks)....................................................................................................7 Phase 2 – (approximately 17 weeks)................................................................................................... 8 Phase 3 – (approximately 17 weeks)................................................................................................... 9 Phase 4 Aftercare- (approximately 3 months)....................................................................................9 Phase Progression.........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NTP-CERHR Expert Panel Report on the Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity of Amphetamine and Methamphetamine
    Published 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.w Birth Defects Research (Part B) 74:471–584 (2005) NTP-CERHR Expert Panel Report on the Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Of Amphetamine and Methamphetamine Mari Golub,1 Lucio Costa,2 Kevin Crofton,3 Deborah Frank,4 Peter Fried,5 Beth Gladen6 Rogene Henderson,7 Erica Liebelt,8 Shari Lusskin,9 Sue Marty,10 Andrew Rowland11 John Scialli12 and Mary Vore13 1California Environment Protection Agency, Sacramento, California 2University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 3U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 4Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 5Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario 6National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 7Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Albuquerque, New Mexico 8University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama 9New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York 10The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan 11University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 12Phoenix, Arizona 13University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky PREFACE studies indexed before December 31, 2004. References were also identified from databases such as REPRO- The National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the TOXs, HSDB, IRIS, and DART and from report National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences bibliographies. (NIEHS) established the NTP Center for the Evaluation This evaluation resulted from the efforts of a 13- of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) in June 1998. member panel of government and non-government The purpose of the Center is to provide timely, unbiased, scientists that culminated in a public expert panel scientifically sound evaluations of human and experi- meeting held January 10–12, 2005. This report is a mental evidence for adverse effects on reproduction and product of the Expert Panel and is intended to (1) development caused by agents to which humans may be interpret the strength of scientific evidence that exposed.
    [Show full text]
  • Jack London's Female Watchers in the Game and the Abysmal Brute
    The Familiar Uncommon Spectator: Jack London's Female Watchers In The Game and the Abysmal Brute Scott Emmert In recent decades, Jack London's significant contributions to American literature have gained an increasing amount of critical recognition. Among these acknowledged contributions is his status as the first "serious" writer of sports fiction in America. Biographer James Lundquist, for example, notes that London "was one ofthe first writers to take sports seriously as the raw material for novels and stories" (179), and critic Michael Oriard goes further, identify­ ing London the "father of American sports fiction" meant for adult readers (Dreaming 9). Specifically, London's accomplishments as a writer ofsports lit­ erature rest mainly on his boxing fiction. 1 As one biography puts it, "London virtually invented the modern prizefight story" (Labor and Reesman 157 n.7), this invention being represented by the short stories "A Piece ofSteak (1909) and "The Mexican" (1910) and by the short novels The Game (1905) and The Abysmal Brute (1913). Always mindful of his audience and of his sales, how­ ever, London crafted this inventive prizefight fiction so as not to offend his readers with the brutality ofboxing, a sport so violent and decadent that it was deemed unfit as a subject of serious literature until London "gave it literary respectability" (Oriard, Dreaming 9). When describing what happens inside the square ring, London seeks a measure of respectability for boxing by tempering his descriptions ofviolent action with a compassionate depiction ofhumanity. London's naturalistic box­ ing fictions, in the way of most naturalist stories, seek to evoke the reader's sympathy for protagonists at the mercy of fo~ces beyond their control.
    [Show full text]
  • Occum Inciment Et Fugia Nobitas Ditate Quam Neurolaw
    from SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012 Volume 24, Issue 5 A publication of the American Society of Trial Consultants Foundation Occum inciment et fugia nobitas ditate quam Neurolaw: Trial Tips for Today and Game Changing Questions for the Future By Alison Bennett HE FUTURE OF LAW is standing on the courthouse steps. cannot predict the point in time at which the intersection of Neurolaw – the combination of neuroscience research technology and law will merge to create credible courtroom Tand the law – is worthy of attention for a number of evidence, we can look to neurolaw research today for research reasons. Neuroscientists are conducting ground-breaking findings that confirm current trial practice techniques and research with a machine called a functional MRI, or fMRI, offer new insights into jury decision making and the art of which is similar to traditional MRI technology but focuses on persuasion. brain activity, not just structure. Some would argue the use of neuroscientific evidence based on fMRI research is a premature Current Criminal Trial Applications adoption of a novel technology, but neurolaw evidence is already In the United States, neuroscientific evidence has been influencing jury trials in the United States and abroad. Billions admitted in over one hundred criminal trials now, has been of dollars are being pored into interdisciplinary neuroscience cited in at least one U. S. Supreme Court case, and is being research each year in the United States and abroad. While we admitted as evidence in other countries as well. In many cases, September/October 2012 - Volume 24, Issue 5 thejuryexpert.com 1 neuroscientific evidence was offered to mitigate sentencing “John grasped the object” and “Pablo kicked the ball.” by presenting neuroimaging highlighting brain damage that The scans revealed activity in the motor cortex, which could have diminished the perpetrator’s capacity and ability coordinates the body’s movements, indicating imagining to make rational decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Ted Gunderson's Affidavit
    Affidavit and curriculum vitae of Ted Gunderson Retyped by Cliff Huylebroeck on December 14, 2013. www.gangstalkingwiki.com TED L. GUNDERSON & ASSOCIATES 6230-A Wilshire Blvd., Suite 6 Los Angeles, California 90048 Phone: (337) 344-8876 I, Ted L. Gunderson, hereby swear under the pains and penalties of jury that the following statements are true and correct: 1. My name is Ted L. Gunderson. I am the owner and operator of Ted L. Gunderson & Associates, an international security and consulting firm based out of Santa Monica, California. I am currently a licensed private investigator in the state of California. I have performed private investigation and security work for numerous individuals, companies, and governments worldwide since founding my firm in 1979. I have worked for, amongst others, F. Lee Bailey, Esq., The California Narcotics Authority by appointment of Governor Jerry Brown, The 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Committee, and The 1979 Pan American Games in San Juan, Puerto Rico by appointment of then U.S. Attorney General Griffin Bell. 2. Previous to my work as a private investigator I spent nearly three decades in the F.B.I. Between 1951 and 1960 I was an F.B.I. Special Agent. In 1960 I was promoted as a supervisor at F.B.I. Headquarters in Washington, D.C., where I was in charge of Organized Crime and Racketeering investigations covering 26 F.B.I. Field Offices nationwide. Following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, I was re-assigned to Special Inquiry White House Matters at F.B.I. Headquarters. In 1965 I was promoted again to Assistant Special Agent-In-Charge of Internal Security and Anti-Terrorism of the F.B.I.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    no reactions indicative of deception. Htr. 44. Smith also testified that he was aware Davenport suffered a stroke sometime prior to 2006, did not have any record associated with the polygraph, and was now unavailable to answer questions about his conduct of the exam. Htr. 184-85. Smith also obtained two affidavits from Britt; one was executed on October 26,2005, the other in November 2005. Htr. 44-52; DX 5058; DX 5059. The October affidavit stated, in at least one paragraph, that Britt transported Stoeckley from Charleston to Raleigh; the November affidavit states that he transported her from Greenville to Raleigh. DX 5058 f 15; DX 5059 ^ 15; see also Htr. 40 (“Sometimes he said Charleston. Sometimes he said Greenville.”). The October affidavit also mentions what Britt felt was unethical behavior - Judge Dupree accepting cakes made by jurors - during the MacDonald trial. DX 5058 U 28. In February 2006, Britt executed an addendum to his affidavit, which included more detail than his previous affidavits. Htr. 199; GX 2089.34 Specifically, Britt stated that he and Holden transported Stoeckley to the courthouse on August 15,1979, for her interviews with the parties. GX 2089. He also stated that the defense interview of Stoeckley concluded around noon, and he then escorted her to the U.S. Attorney’s office. Britt again asserted that he was present during Stoeckley’s interview with the Government, and quoted Blackburn as telling her: “If you go downstairs and testify that you were at Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald’s house on the night of the murders, I will indict you as an accessory to murder.” Id.
    [Show full text]
  • Llatest Sporting 1 News
    MOW /mous,siErTemueRL& Main present time. Thai Is to get alletlier THE ORIGINAL DESERT LAND, FINAL PROOF.— 1 crack at Comiskers‘WhIte Sex for a Notice for Publication.—U. S. Lead JUST ARRIVapi SPORTING world title. LAXATIVE OffIce,44awistown, Mont., July 31, "They beat us last Year," he said, 1907. Notice Is that NEWS "and beat us fairly. I for one have HONEY and herelreegiven TAR A Car of LLATEST no excuses to make. All I am wish- ELLEN AYERS, left sterng San Francisco, Sept. 9.—A ing for 18 another chance at them. Cures Coughs, Colds, Croup, La Grippe, Asthma, Throat in the of Lewistown. Mont., assignee of to the body. Cleverly blocked by Joe We hope it will be different then." James P. Anderson, has filed notice Troubles. Prevents Pneumonia and Consumption P4CICAOR Gans, cost jimmy Britt any chance "Are you picking up the Sox to re- and Lung Yeu-ow of intention to make proof on her he might have had to win the light- peat," he wag asked. Recommended and Guaranteed by C. H. WILLIAMS. desert land claim, No. 2368, for the weight chansDionallIP of the world to- "Well, no; I can't say that I ant. se% ne%, ae% se%, sec 7, n% sw%, day and brought to a close five rounds Screen Boors and It seems to me Philadelphia will just DESERT LAND, FINAL PROOF.— NOTICE FOR PUBLICATION.—D• EDWARD BR ASSF:Y sec 8, tp 15 n, r ZS e, Mont. P. M., of fast fighting witnessed by a crowd about win it out with that long Notice for Publication— Uellod partment of the Interior, Land Of- Late 1115leter // 8 L..d 01,41 before the register and receiver at of about people at Recreation 14,000 stretch of games on the home groun States Land Office, Lewletown, Mon fice at Lewistown, Montana, Aug.
    [Show full text]
  • Jilti 0Clttlt0
    r Q ffejf riftflft. - Jilt I 0Clttlt0 ftfff ' COVERS THE MORNING FIELD ONf HE LOWCR COLUMBIA PU8USHCS FULL ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORT 33rd YEAR, NO. 89 ASTORIA, OREGON, SUNDAY, APRIL 12, 1908 PRICE FIVE CENTS take them unaware another battle is opposition measure far the of fast right. This is the last time 1 purpose anticipated. Sheriff Smith took misleading the people. will ever box in a prize ring. This is JIMMY steps tonight to prevent the men get- A STATEMENT "Hence, we, the people of the cen BRin no 'Patti' farewell. I am through for Mm ting into eastern Oregon through the ter of the Columbia River salmon in all time." Snoqualmie Pass. Wires were sent ditstry, beg of our fellow citizens McFarland in a statement after you, to Cle Cllum, Easton and several of Oregon to ; testifying to Unit's gamencss says in other town that are only a short dis- BY CITIZENS "Vote on Initiative Bill 332, X OUTCLASSED the next he to lots of CAPTURED year hopes gain tance from the East side of the Pass yes.' experience and that time he ex- by asking that officers be sent to inter "Vote on Initiative Hill 319, X No pects to be ready to take Joe Cans' cept the men if they should succeed "We leave our just cause in your measure. in getting through the Pass before hands, fully convinced that the vot being overtaken by the Starwick crs of next June will put BY WIRELESS. At the Mass Meeting Frl-- Oregon posse. top to the wanton salmon destruc McFarland Wins in The The South Dakota is 200 miles Sheriff Shatters His Knee fish convinc tion by the wheels; fully south of the Columbia River and .
    [Show full text]
  • Neurolaw Or Frankenlaw? the Thought Police Have Arrived Brain
    Volume 16, Issue 1 Summer 2011 Neurolaw or Frankenlaw? Brain-Friendly The Thought Police Have Arrived Case Stories By Larry Dossey, MD Part Two Reprinted with the author’s permission “This technology . opens up for the first time the possibility of punishing By Eric Oliver people for their thoughts rather than their actions.” —Henry T. Greely, bioethicist, Stanford Law School Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism.” Wonder Woman, the fabulous comic book heroine, wields a formidable - C. S. Lewis weapon called the Lasso of Truth. This magical lariat makes it impossible for anyone caught in it to lie. FIRST THINGS FIRST American psychologist William Moulton Marston created Wonder After the August, 1974 resig- Woman in 1941. He hit a nerve; Wonder Woman has been the most popular nation of Richard Nixon, an apoc- Continued on pg. 32 ryphal story began making the media rounds. It seems one of the major outlets had run a simple poll, asking respondents who they had voted for in the previous presi- dential race: McGovern or Nixon. have a most productive and practical contribution According to the results, Nixon had to share with you from my friend and consulting lost to “President” McGovern by a colleague, Amy Pardieck, from Perceptual Litigation. No stranger to these pages, Katherine James, landslide! Whether it is true or not, of ACT of Communication, makes the case that ac- the story rings of verisimilitude. Hi All – tors and directors have known for decades what tri- What the pollsters didn’t measure, Welcome to the second issue of the new al attorneys interested in bridging the gap between and which would have been much Mental Edge.
    [Show full text]
  • The Potential Contribution of Neuroscience to the Criminal Justice System of New Zealand
    1 The Potential Contribution of Neuroscience to the CriminalJustice System of New Zealand SARAH MURPHY I INTRODUCTION Descriptions of "neurolaw", the legal discipline governing the intersection of law and neuroscience, span a continuum from "contribut[ing] nothing more than new details"' to ushering in "the greatest intellectual catastrophe in the history of our species". This controversy is not unwarranted. The "technological wizardry"3 of modern neuroscience tracks the movement of fluids and electrical currents, revealing both structure and organic functioning, and is the closest humans have come to "mind reading". While not unwarranted, the controversy's reactionary nature gives the misleading impression that neurolaw is a modem invention. In fact, neurolaw's historical roots are evident in the law's foundational preoccupation with concepts of mens rea and moral desert.' Connections between criminal behaviour and brain injury appeared as early as 1848,1 with biological positivism making formal - and sinister - progress at the end of the 19th century.6 Current legal applications of neuroscience both continue this story and reflect a wider trend of science gaining popular trust and interest from the courts.' Such applications have been proposed t Winner of the 2011 Minter Ellison Rudd Watts Prize for Legal Writing. * BSc (Biological Sciences)/LLB(Hons). The author would like to thank Professor Warren Brookbanks of the University of Auckland Faculty of Law, for his advice during the writing of this dissertation and an earlier, related research paper. I Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen "For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything" (2004) 359 Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 1775 at 1775.
    [Show full text]
  • NSDUH MRB Instrumentation Protocol Changes
    Instrumentation Protocol Changes The 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) instrumentation protocols underwent several modifications from the protocols employed for the 2014 NSDUH. A summary of the changes for the 2015 NSDUH can be divided into three topics: (1) the computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) tablet screening instrument, (2) the CAI questionnaire, and (3) the interviewer materials. 1. Screening Instrument Using the 2014 Screening Application as a base, questions, response options, and informed consent wording were modified for the 2015 Screening Application. Listed below are the Screening Application changes for 2015: • As necessary, dates were updated in the screening program. • As necessary, specification updates were made to reflect current tablet screening programming and format. • Response options in the Spanish-language screener have been translated into Spanish. • In the Study Introduction, "Research Triangle Institute" has been replaced with "RTI International," and "U.S. Public Health Service" has been replaced with "U.S. Department of Health and Human Services." • All ePTE data screens were removed. • Field Interviewer (FI) Debriefing Questions were moved from the CAI Questionnaire to the screening tablet, to be administered after leaving the household. They are now documented as "Section 9, FI Debriefing Questions," within the NSDUH Screening Specifications document. 2. CAI Questionnaire Using the 2014 CAI Questionnaire as a base, questions and routing were modified for the 2015 CAI Questionnaire. Listed below are the CAI Questionnaire changes for 2015: Introduction • The CAI instrument version, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number, and OMB expiration date were updated in the Introduction section. • The OMB control number was also updated in the Public Reporting Burden statement.
    [Show full text]