Motions in LimineA.Victim-impact testimony should be precluded because it is inflammatory andirrelevant at trial.
filings in this case have included inflammatory and—as tothe merits of the trial— irrelevant “victim-impact” evidence. For example, the government points out that one investor planned to use his stock holdings for his retirement.
Another victim is apparently bankrupt as a result of Argyll’s sale of his stock.
This evidence, whilecertainly sympathetic and unquestionably relevant for purposes of sentencing, has no place before the jury. Victim impact does not make any questions at trial more or less likely. For example, consider the converse: if some of the government’s victims are fabulously wealthy (assome appear to be) would it be relevant if they barely missed their stock, financially speaking?If the theft of their stock did not harm them financially at all in the grand scheme of things?
Itis difficult to imagine the defense being permitted to show the jury that some victims are stillrich, so the government should not be permitted to prove that some victims are now poor.Impact on the victim, again, would be appropriate in the event of a sentencing. But is whollyinappropriate, irrelevant, and unduly prejudicial in the context of a jury trial. Mr. Spanier movesto exclude any evidence of this sort under Rules 401, 402, and 403.
B.Evidence about the size of Mr. Spanier’s home, his allegedly “lavish” lifestyle andsimilar evidence should also be precluded because it is designed to prejudice the jury and lacks probative value.
Whenever the government talks about the facts of this case, it is always sure to includeinflammatory details about the defendants so-called “lavish lifestyles.” For example, in itsmotions in limine, the government asserts:
Government Motions in Limine, at 5.
To be clear, McClain and Miceli stole the stock. Mr. Spanier did not. He believed thatthey were complying with the written contracts and his representations.
Case 3:12-cr-00918-BEN Document 150-1 Filed 04/09/13 Page 2 of 7