Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Zamudio

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

September 6, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
JUAN ZAMUDIO, ADRIAN BENNETT a/k/a BLACK, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN LIMINE

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE

         Pending before the Court is a Motion in Limine (Filing No. 994) filed by Plaintiff United States of America (the “Government”), concerning the designation of expert witnesses during trial; Defendant Adrian Bennett's (“Bennett”) prior convictions as appropriate cross-examination under Rule 609; preclusion of references by Bennett on possible penalties; and the admission of wiretap transcripts. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants the majority of the motions in limine, but takes one matter under advisement.

         I. LEGAL STANDARD

         Pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Government has filed a Motion in Limine requesting that the Court address certain matters that are capable of resolution prior to trial. The Court excludes evidence on a motion in limine only if the evidence clearly is not admissible for any purpose. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F.Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Unless evidence meets this exacting standard, evidentiary rulings must be deferred until trial so questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice may be resolved in context. Id. at 1400-01. Moreover, denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion is admissible; rather, it only means that, at the pretrial stage, the court is unable to determine whether the evidence should be excluded. Id. at 1401.

         II. DISCUSSION

         The Government has identified four matters for pretrial rulings by the Court. The Court notes that Bennett, who is representing himself, has not responded to the motion. The Court will address each matter in turn and will allow Bennett an opportunity to address the rulings at the upcoming final pretrial conference.

         A. Designation of Expert Witnesses

         The Government explains that this Court-along with the other courts in this District-has historically followed a practice whereby it has declined to designate witnesses providing expert opinion testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 as “expert witnesses” before the jury. The Government asserts that, in light of a recent Seventh Circuit ruling, [1] it believes the Court should change this practice and allow all witnesses testifying pursuant to Rule 702 to be referred to as “expert witnesses” before the jury and for the Court to designate these witnesses as such. The Court agrees. Bennett has not objected to the Government's Motion in Limine requesting that the Court designate witnesses providing expert opinion testimony under Rule 702 as “expert witnesses” before the jury. In light of the recent guidance from the Seventh Circuit, the Court grants the Government's Motion in Limine and will designate witnesses providing expert opinion testimony under Rule 702 as “expert witnesses” before the jury.

         B. Impeachment Pursuant to Rule 609

         The Government proffers that Bennett has sustained the following prior felony convictions: November 26, 2014, Possession of Hash Oil/Marijuana, Hancock Circuit Court, Indiana; April 11, 2013, Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Previously Convicted Felon, Hancock Circuit Court, Indiana; and, May 14, 2009, Dealing in Cocaine, Marion County Court, Indiana. Bennett is charged at Count Nine with being a previously convicted felon in possession of a firearm; accordingly, the Government is obligated to prove Bennett is a previously convicted felon. The Government anticipates offering evidence of Bennett's prior felony conviction(s) in its case in chief, because Bennett has declined to enter into a stipulation regarding his status as a previously convicted felon. However, the Court notes that the introduction of all three felony convictions may not be appropriate.

         In addition, the Government contends that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 609, Bennett's prior felony convictions are the proper subject of cross-examination should Bennett testify at his trial. Federal Rule of Evidence 609 allows the admission of evidence of prior criminal convictions when used to impeach a witness, but different standards apply depending on whether the prior conviction is more or less than ten years old. Rule 609 states that when attacking a witness's truthfulness, “evidence of a criminal conviction . . . must be admitted in a criminal case in which the witness is a defendant, if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to that defendant.” F.R.E. 609(a)(1)(B). So, within the ten-year lookback period, the conviction's probative value must outweigh the prejudicial effect. A limiting instruction which tells the jury that the prior convictions may only be used in determining the credibility of the defendant reduces the prejudicial effect of admission. United States v. Redditt, 381 F.3d 597, 601 (7th Cir. 2004).

         The Government asserts that Bennett's three prior criminal convictions fall within the ten-year lookback period; however, the Government does not provide any argument as to whether the criminal convictions' probative value outweighs their prejudicial effects. In weighing the probative value against prejudice, the Court considers “(1) the impeachment value of the prior crime; (2) the point in time of the conviction and the defendant's subsequent history; (3) the similarity between the past crime and the charged crime; (4) the importance of the defendant's testimony; and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue.” United States v. Smith, 131 F.3d 685, 687 (7th Cir. 1997). The Court takes this request under advisement and the Government should be prepared to present argument on this issue at the final pretrial conference scheduled for September 10, 2018.

         C. Defendant Should Be Precluded From Referencing the Potential Penalty

         Bennett is charged in Count One with Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and to Distribute Methamphetamine and Cocaine (upon conviction, sentence is mandatory life); and in Count Nine with Felon in Possession of a Firearm (upon conviction, maximum custodial sentence is ten years). The Government requests that the Court order Bennett not to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.