Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
UNITED STATES MOTION IN LIMINE marrietta parker

UNITED STATES MOTION IN LIMINE marrietta parker

Ratings: (0)|Views: 87 |Likes:
Published by Jones, Walker
Case No. 07-20124-01/02-CM
Case No. 07-20124-01/02-CM

More info:

Published by: Jones, Walker on Aug 10, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/10/2009

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS(Kansas City Docket)UNITED STATES OF AMERICA))Plaintiff,))v.))CARRIE MARIE NEIGHBORS, )and)GUY MADISON NEIGHBORS,))Defendants. )Case No. 07-20124-01/02-CMUNITED STATES MOTION IN LIMINE
Comes now the United States of America, plaintiff herein, by and through theundersigned Assistant United States Attorney, and moves for rulings
in limine
andprovides notice of the following issues for the Court to consider prior to the presentationof evidence in the present case. The defendants, through various postings on severalinternet web sites and during cross examination at several pretrial hearings, have maderepeated inaccurate, untrue and spurious allegations of misconduct against witnesses,law enforcement agents and attorneys involved in the investigation and prosecution of this case. Based upon these allegations, the government reasonably believes that thedefendants will attempt to inject these issues into the trial of the case and requests thatbefore any inquiry into any of these unfounded and untrue allegations be made duringthe trial of this case, the defendant be required to establish relevancy and their goodfaith basis for the allegation.
 
2
While the “right to confrontation may be violated if the trial court precludesan entire relevant area of cross-examination[,]”
Parker v. Scott 
, 394 F.3d1302, 1316 (10 Cir. 2005), the presentation of evidence nevertheless
th
“must comply with established rules of evidence and procedure,”
United States v. Solomon
, 399 F.3d 1231, 1239 (10 Cir. 2005). The Sixth
th
 Amendment does not guarantee “cross-examination that is effective inwhatever way and to whatever extent, the defendant might wish.”
Delaware v. Van Arsdall,
475 U.S. 673, 679 106 S.Ct. 1431, 80 L.Ed.2d674 (1986). In sum, “a criminal defendant states a violation of theConfrontation clause by showing that he was prohibited from engaging in
”otherwise appropriate cross-examination
designed to show a prototypicalform of bias on the part of the witness, and thereby “to expose to the jurythe facts from which jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating tothe reliability of the witness.”
Id.
at 680.
United States v. Turner 
, 553 F.3d 1337, 1349 (10 Cir. 2009)
th
Rule 608, Fed.R.Crim.P.
Impeachment with specific acts of misconduct is governed by the provisions of Rule 608, Fed.R.Evid., which provides in pertinent part:(B) Specific instances of conduct. Specific instances of conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness’ character for truthfulness, other thanconviction of crime as provided in rule 609, may not beproved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in thediscretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of thewitness (1) concerning the witness’ character for truthfulnessor untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to whichcharacter the witness being cross-examined has testified.
Id.
In this case, the defendants have filed motions for disclosure of the governmentwitnesses’ substance abuse history and current drug use, their criminal historiesincluding arrests and charges filed, and any pending warrants. Clearly, the defendantsseek information relating to prior bad acts and the government requests that the
 
3
defendants be directed not to refer to any of those matters or to any of the followingmatters during cross examination or during their cases-in-chief without first establishing,out of the presence of the jury, the good faith basis for each allegation of misconduct or other bad act and the relevance of each allegation to the issues in this case:1. Evidence missing from the evidence room of the Lawrence, KS, PoliceDepartment
;
2. Guns seized by Lawrence Police Department being sold in area pawn shops;3. Drug or alcohol use or investigations of drug/alcohol use by law enforcementofficers;4. Disciplinary actions imposed upon law enforcement officers;5. Planting or falsifying evidence;6. Theft of money or property belonging to arrested persons;7. Impersonation of FBI agents;8. Use of racial epithets by prosecutor or witnesses;9. Racially motivated investigation and prosecution;10. Any other specific instance of misconduct offered to impeach the credibilityof a witness called by the government[C]ourts require a “good faith” basis before permitting a party to crossexamine regarding prior bad acts. See, for example,
U.S. v. Ovalle-Marquez 
, 36 F.3d 212, 219 (1st Cir.1994) cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1007,115 S.Ct. 1322, 131 L.Ed.2d 202 (1995). While the purpose of cross-examination is to impeach the credibility of a witness, the basis for theimpeachment cannot be speculation and innuendo with no evidentiaryfoundation.
Id.
The general rule in such situations is that the questioner must be in possession of some facts which support a genuine belief thatthe witness committed the offense or the degrading act to which thequestioning relates.
United States v. Sampol 
, 636 F.2d 621, 658(D.C.Cir.1980) (quotation omitted).
United States v. Ruiz-Castro
92 F.3d 1519, 1528 (10 Cir. 1996) (reversed on other 
th

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->