Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1
Mark S. Iaoovino, Esq., #l]lIl299
2 IACOVINO AND KAYI..ER‘
3 Sl Si} N. Hayden Road, Suite D-EG4
Scottsdale, Arizona S525S
4 4Sd-483-24{M
5 Attorney for: Defendant
6 IN THE IJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
S
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
} No. CRu4—·I]·4S9-·Il01-PHX-SRD
In Plaintiff, )
I
11 vs. } DEFENDANT’S SECOND
E } MOTION IN LIMINE
at E 12 James oavro snow, n., ;»
Eg Q § 13 _ } {Trial set l2fI]¤tifil5; Assigned to the
5 TS § Defendant. ) Hon. Susan R. Bolton}
‘ Ill
m "Q E aw M
2 ·:· -" rn
.:4::
g g é g I5 Defendant, JAMES DAVID SNOW, IT, by and through his tmdersigned attorney,
""B
5 aq —e= 16
Q ·:"`·1 Qi " hereby moves this court in {imma to preclude the introduction of any testimony or other
sim n
Q IS evidence regarding the alleged discovery of small amounts of marijuana, one marijuana plant, a
IH baggie of suspected mushrooms and some empty plastic baggies during the search of the house
20 in which Defendant lived at the time of his arrest. Such testimony or evidence should be
21 precluded on the grounds and for the reasons that the alleged discovery of those items bears no
22 relevance to the issues to he tried in this case, and if deemed relevant, the probative value of
23
24 such evidence, if any, is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion
25 of the issues or misleading the jtu·y. This motion is supported by the following Memorandum
26 of 'Points and Authorities, incorporated herein by this reference.
27 . . . n
28
1
ase 2:O4—cr—OO489-SRB Document 40 Filed 12/O2/2005 Page 1 of 4

1 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 2nd day ef December, 2ll·|Zl5.
3 J. IACOVEZQ AND KAYLER
A ,.......
5 . (__ ( .— --.
"S. yine
6 _, ’“ A ey fer Defendant
T MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
E I. FACTS n T
In On er abeut April 29, 2UU3, Defendant was arrested by eliicers ef the United
3] States lvlarshal’s Service and was subsequently charged with Unlawful Pessessien ef Fireanns,
g [Lx QD 12 in vielatien ef Title 26, United States Cede, Sectiens 922[g)(l] and 924{a)[2), and Unlawful

§ 2% § 13 Pessessien ef a Firearm Net Registered in the lslatienal Firearms Fcegistratien and Transfer
E E 5 g Recerd, in vielatien ef Title 26, United States Cede, Sectiens 5S+5I(d} and 5S’?l. Defendanfs
E g 16 arrest fellewed a search ef a liear bedreenr heuse in which he was living lecated at l3l}li·’ N.
E 17 3Uth Street in Fheenix., Arlzena, in which numereus firearms were fermd. Defendant lived in

T} 18 the heuse aleng with three ether yeung men. During the search ef the heuse, the efhcers alse
19 allegedly discevered a “suspectetl marijuana plant,” a “hex centaining a substance believed te
20 be marijuana (abeut I eunee],” a "bag centaining .55 ez. ef green leafy substance appearing te
E; he marijnana,” a “ba.ggie ef suspected mushrecrns," and ‘*a number et" clear plastic baggies."
23 Te the best ef an Defendant’s knewledge and belief, neither the suspected
24 marijuana ner the suspected mushreems have been scientifically tested te determine whether er
25 net they are, in fact, items ef eentraband.
26 II. ARGUMENT
22
23 The alleged diseevery ef the suspected marijuana., suspected mushreems and
plastic baggies bears ne relevance te the issues te be tried in this case. Defendant is charged
2
ase 2:O4—cr—OO489-SRB Document 40 Filed 12/O2/2005 Page 2 of 4

; only with the illegal pessessinn cf firearms. Rule 4t}l cf the Federal Rule ef Evidence deiines
3 ‘*relevant evidence" as “evidence having any tendency tn make the existence ef any fact that is
4 cf ccnsequenee tc the determinaticn cf the acticn mare er less prcbable that it wculd be witheut
5 the evidence? The presence nf a small amcunt cf suspected marijuana, suspected mushrccms
E and plastic baggies in ne way bears upcn a.r1y fact that is ef censequence tc the deterrninatiun nf
lg this case, i.e., whether cr net Defendant illegally pcssessed firearms. As such, Rule 4tiE renders
9 evidence cf the suspected marijuana, muslirucms and baggies inadmissible.
In Even if such evidence were deemed tc be scrnehcw relevant, any prcbative
ll value such evidence might have is substantially cutweighed by the danger ef unfair prejudice
E chg 12 and cnniiisicn cf the issues. Thercfere, if net rendered inadmissible pursuant te Rule 4t}2, such
E és evidence must be precluded pursuant tc Rule 4t}3.
E gg 15 Based cn the faregeing, it is respectfully urged that any testimcny er ether
g g 16 evidence regarding the alleged disccvery ef small ameunts ef marijuana, une marijuana plant, a
{EI [E 17 baggie nf suspected mushrenms and seme empty plastic baggies during the search cf the heuse
E 13 in which Defendant lived at the time nf his arrest be precluded frcm intreductictn at trial.
19 RESPECTFULLT SUBMITTED this End day uf December, 2{ll]5.
is IACDVIND AND KAYLER
23 "“` _`_—"·-—-
lvl ine .
24 Ptttc ey fer Defendant
25
27 P l l
3
ase 2:O4—cr—OO489-SRB Document 40 Filed 12/O2/2005 Page 3 of 4

1
ORIGINAL electronically filod _
2 this 2nd day of Docambor, 2005 with:
3 Clark of tho United Statss District Court
4 401 W. Washington S11·oot
Phosnix, Arizona 35003
5 @ http:ffoo£az:d.uscourts.gov .
B COPY ofthe forsgoing
T maiiod this 2nd day
of Datzcmbsr, 2005, to:
S
The Hon. Susan R. Bolton
H United Statos District Court
Sandra Day O’Conno1· U.S. Courthouse
1] 401 W. Washington Stroot
E 12 Phoonix, Arizona S5003-2153 __
CN
=— S E spasai asst.u¤1tas saiss assmsy
5 .é Q LE 14 40 N. Oonttal Avnuo, Suits 1200
g $ -§ Phosnix, Arizona 35004
§ O ·=·¤ r is
z —§ E .
r T Q Br- .~L———
§ E "" 16 Mark S. Iaoovino
EEA u
7;* is
10 _
20
21
22
23
24
25 .
20
27
28
4
ase 2:O4—cr—OO489-SRB Document 40 Filed 12/O2/2005 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:04-cr-00489-SRB

Document 40

Filed 12/02/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cr-00489-SRB

Document 40

Filed 12/02/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cr-00489-SRB

Document 40

Filed 12/02/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cr-00489-SRB

Document 40

Filed 12/02/2005

Page 4 of 4