UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THEDISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **** UNITED STATES OF AMERICA**** v.*07-CR-0189-03-GZS*** CIRINO GONZALEZ**** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *MOTION IN LIMINE/FIREARMS-EXPLOSIVES

NOW COMES

the defendant, Cirino Gonzalez, by counsel, David H. Bownes, andrespectfully requests that this Court order that the government may not use the actual firearms,explosive devices, and pipe bombs as evidence in this matter.As grounds for this request it is stated:1. The defendant is charged with Conspiracy to Commit Offenses Against the UnitedStates (18 U.S.C. § 371); Accessory After the Fact (18 U.S.C. § 3); and Carrying and Possessinga Firearm in Connection with a Crime of Violence (18 U.S.C. § 924 ( c ) (1) (A) (I).2. The defendant had previously filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars for the firearmsallegedly possessed by Mr. Gonzalez and requested that the government specify which firearm itwould prove with respect to the 924 (c) count.3. The Court, by Order, denied that request.4. In addition, Mr. Gonzalez had filed a Motion In Limine with respect to explosivedevices found at the Brown residence in September and October of 2007.5. The Court ruled that the proper jury instruction would address the issue of how thatevidence may be viewed by the jury.

6. While the defendant continues to disagree and asserts that in fact that the explosivedevices are highly prejudicial and the spill over effect is incurable, there remains the issue of how the government may prove the firearms charge with respect to Mr. Gonzalez and theexplosive charges with respect to the defendants, Gerhard and Riley.7. It is submitted that the government intends to introduce into evidence the actualfirearms and innumerable firearms. Many of the firearms are simply not relevant to Mr.Gonzalez’s charges and certainly the explosive devices as the government has conceded is notrelevant to Mr. Gonzalez’s charges.8. It is submitted that as long as the parties agree (the defendant submits that the partiesdo agree) that photographs of the particular weapons, explosive devices and numerous otherevidentiary items are, in fact what they are represented to be, there is no need to introduce theactual weapons and/or explosive devices.9. In fact, the only purpose for introducing the weapons themselves or showing them tothe jury can only be to inflame the jury on a theory that the demonstration of those weapons isnow necessary to further the government’s case in chief.10. It is submitted that the use of the firearms in a manner that the government intends isin fact highly prejudicial and likely to infuse the jury with prejudicial considerations not relevantto the jury’s consideration of the elements of the crimes charged.11. It is submitted that the use of the actual evidentiary items themselves improperlysway the jury in terms of the consideration of the facts and infuses it’s deliberations withimproper, irrelevant considerations. See F.R.E. 404 (b).12. The government objects to this motion.13. It is believed that defendant Riley and defendant Gerhard assent to this motionthrough counsel.