Case 1:16-cr GHW Document 444 Filed 12/04/18 Page 1 of 7
|
|
- Kathryn Kennedy
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 1:16-cr GHW Document 444 Filed 12/04/18 Page 1 of 7 VIA ECF Honorable Gregory H. Woods United States District Court Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY Meringolo Law 375 Greenwich Street New York, New York (212) / (212) fax December 4, 2018 Re: United States v. James Grant, et al., 16-CR-468 (GHW) Dear Judge Woods: On behalf of defendant James Grant in the above-captioned matter, we write in response to a letter motion, dated November 1, 2018, submitted by the City of New York s Law Department seeking to quash a subpoena served on Mayor William de Blasio. Per the Court s Order, we submit our response as we near the conclusion of Jona Rechnitz s testimony, which has provided us a more comprehensive basis on which to oppose the motion to quash. Furthermore, in the recent days, Mayor de Blasio has been publicly discussing Mr. Rechnitz, describing him as a very troubled person who s committed crimes and has lied incessantly. 1 By the Mayor s own public admissions, he has information about Mr. Rechnitz that is directly relevant to the issues here. For the following reasons, we submit that Mayor de Blasio s testimony is directly relevant to a number of matters to which Mr. Rechnitz testified and his testimony would not fall within any exclusion under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. While we assert that Mayor de Blasio s testimony is directly relevant under Rule 401, it can also be properly admitted as impeachment evidence, namely, to show Mr. Rechnitz s bias, and secondarily, to impeach by contradiction. Mr. Rechnitz s Testimony Relevant Facts Since the inception of this case, Mayor de Blasio s name has been inextricably intertwined with lead cooperator, Jona Rechnitz, due to Mr. Rechnitz s allegations that he engaged in illegal campaign donations and political corruption. Though not a charged act 1 See Exhibit A, De Blasio Won t Say Whether He Destroyed s in Alleged Bribery Scandal, New York Post, November 30,
2 Case 1:16-cr GHW Document 444 Filed 12/04/18 Page 2 of 7 in the indictment, Mr. Rechnitz alleges to have committed these acts with Jeremy Reichberg. As Mr. Rechnitz stated under oath at his plea hearing: I also agreed with that same friend to make contributions and to arrange for contributions by others to political campaigns. I expected, based on an implicit understanding, that if I requested a favor or assistance from any of those officers or beneficiaries of my political contributions, that I would receive favorable treatment for myself and others as a result of my gifts and contributions With respect to political contributions, I expected for my conversations with the fundraiser that I would receive favorable municipal treatment. 2 An extensive (and very public) investigation was conducted as to Mayor de Blasio but no criminal charges were brought. The Mayor has openly acknowledged the allegations, and made public statements rebuking Mr. Rechnitz s claims, calling the cooperator a liar and a felon. 3 Nonetheless, based on Mr. Rechnitz s plea allocution as well as his testimony in prior proceedings, defense counsel had viable reason to believe that his alleged dealings with the Mayor would also be elicited on direct examination in the present case. As such, we subpoenaed Mayor de Blasio to appear and testify at trial as well as produce any and all communications in his possession between himself and Mr. Rechnitz. On behalf of Mayor de Blasio, the City of New York s Law Department promptly filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The motion asserts that the Mayor does not have unique first-hand knowledge of information regarding Mr. Rechnitz s credibility or character and in any event, the Mayor s testimony concerning Mr. Rechnitz s reputation for truthfulness should be excluded as cumulative. See Mayor de Blasio s Motion to Quash, dated November 1, 2018, at 2 (Dkt. #374). The motion further argues that any testimony that the Mayor could offer would be about collateral matters. Id. at 3. Because the full relevancy of the Mayor s testimony would not be realized until Mr. Rechnitz testified, the Court ordered defense counsel to respond to the motion to quash after Mr. Rechnitz s testimony concluded. Although Mr. Rechnitz, as of the date of this letter, is still on cross examination, he has testified about the Mayor quite considerably. His testimony serves as further reason why Mayor de Blasio s testimony is offered for reasons beyond impeachment purposes or character evidence. Rather, he will serve to directly rebut the testimony of Mr. Rechnitz that was elicited to form the background of the crimes charged. In this case, Mr. Rechnitz has testified (despite prior inconsistent testimony to the contrary) that Mr. Reichberg was involved with him in many of his schemes, one of 2 See United States v. Rechnitz, 16-CR-389 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y.) Plea Transcript, March 15, See October 28, 2017 Transcript, Exhibit B of Mayor de Blasio s November 1, 2018 Motion to Quash (Dkt. # 374). 2
3 Case 1:16-cr GHW Document 444 Filed 12/04/18 Page 3 of 7 which involved an attempt to curry favor with politicians. Tr Originally a supporter of Bill Thompson for the Democratic mayoral candidate, Mr. Rechnitz testifies that [w]e got in with Bill de Blasio once he secured the party s nomination. Tr Mr. Rechnitz testifies that, after meeting Mayor de Blasio s chief fundraiser, Ross Offinger, he began to raise money for the campaign with Mr. Reichberg. Tr Aside from donating the maximum individual amount allowable, Mr. Rechnitz testifies that he and Mr. Reichberg committed to raising $100,000. Tr In a meeting between Mr. Rechnitz, Mr. Reichberg, Mr. Offinger, and Fernando Mateo (the individual who introduced Mr. Rechnitz to Mr. Offinger), Mr. Rechnitz allegedly made clear that in exchange for the fundraising efforts, we wanted access, we wanted influence, and we wanted a lot of access. When we called, we wanted results. Tr Mr. Rechnitz testifies that he developed a close relationship with Mayor de Blasio after an initial meeting at his office. As he states, [w]e were ing each other, we would have phone calls, I d call him about his general issues in the city, and we had s going back and forth with one another. Tr Mr. Rechnitz concedes that although he had asked the Mayor about committees on which they wanted to be placed, they never spoke about actual results through his office. Tr After Mayor de Blasio won the New York City mayoral election, Mr. Rechnitz describes him and Mr. Reichberg as being excited because they were very substantial donors, had an in with his chief fundraiser, and had their own relationship with Bill de Blasio at that point. Tr Mr. Rechnitz and Mr. Reichberg were subsequently appointed to an inaugural committee. Mayor de Blasio also asked Mr. Rechnitz to donate to a campaign to keep the New York State Senate under Democratic control, to which Mr. Rechnitz donated the maximum allowable amount of $102,000 to have the effect that I m his guy. Tr Mr. Rechnitz further testified to various private matters to which the Mayor allegedly offered his assistance such as: a vacate notice served on his wife s cousin who ran a preschool; a friend who owned a building identified as a potential location for a police precinct and wanted to sell without giving the NYPD first right of refusal; and a friend who was receiving incorrect water bills. Tr Mr. Rechnitz sought assistance for his own issues as well, when a tenant of his was illegally renting his property on AirBnB. Tr Mr. Rechnitz surmised that he violated election laws when donating to Mayor de Blasio s campaign because he obtained the money through straw donors who he was illegally reimbursing. Tr Mr. Rechnitz alleges that Mr. Reichberg was aware of these activities and that they were part of it together. As part of his scheme to influence, Mr. Rechnitz also testified that he had numerous discussions with Mayor de Blasio about former NYPD Chief of Department, Philip Banks. In light of his relationship with the Chief and his desire to get close with high ranking NYPD officials, Mr. Rechnitz extensively lobbied to have Mr. Banks promoted to Police Commissioner. As Mr. Rechnitz testified: I met and ed Mayor de Blasio several times about making Phil Banks the next commissioner, we thought that 3
4 Case 1:16-cr GHW Document 444 Filed 12/04/18 Page 4 of 7 he was a good choice, and we had communicated that to him on several occasions. Tr The government admitted into evidence several s between Mr. Rechnitz and the Mayor discussing the possibility of Mr. Banks becoming the Police Commissioner. See GX1038, 1039, 1041, and Mr. Banks eventually resigned upon the Mayor s choice of William Bratton for the Police Commissioner position. Despite Mr. Rechnitz s pleas to the Mayor on behalf of Mr. Banks, he could not get his position as Chief of Department back. Aside from its substance, this portion of testimony is particularly relevant because it exposed s that the press claims the Mayor s office failed to produce in response to last year s Freedom of Information Law requests. Since Mr. Rechnitz s testimony, news outlets have been pointing out the discrepancies and deletions between the government exhibits and the Mayor s previous productions. 4 During his weekly appearance on WNYC Radio, in response to the question of whether he deleted certain s with Mr. Rechnitz, the Mayor responded that: I get lots of s and anything consequential, anything that has to do with government business, we try and move it over to the government side, preserve the ones that need to be preserved. 5 It is unknown the extent to which the Mayor s communications with Mr. Rechnitz has been preserved or deleted. The Existing s Between Mayor de Blasio and Mr. Rechnitz Issues of deletion aside, there are numerous s between Mayor de Blasio and Mr. Rechnitz that illustrate that a relationship existed between the two that would put Mayor de Blasio in a position to offer relevant testimony. As extracted from Mr. Rechnitz s account, the Mayor sent him an , dated January 1, 2014 (the day of his inauguration), thanking him for his support. As the Mayor states: Today we celebrated our dream. I couldn t be more proud to have you by my side. Thank you for your support and more importantly, your friendship. Please call me tomorrow to setup a meeting for early next week. I need you to accept the position I offered you. Love you brother. See Exhibit B at 1. The Mayor also sent Mr. Rechnitz his well wishes on June 2, 2014 upon Mr. Rechnitz welcoming a new baby. Id. at 2. Along with a Happy Thanksgiving message sent on November 26, 2013, the then Mayor-elect directed Mr. Rechnitz to Please call me when you can. Important! Id. at 4. In addition, pursuant to defense counsel s subpoena request for communications, the Mayor s office has provided a number of exchanges between Mayor de Blasio and Mr. Rechnitz. Although heavily redacted, the s demonstrative the nature of their relationship and consist of, among others, the following 6 : All s collectively referred to as Exhibit C. 4
5 Case 1:16-cr GHW Document 444 Filed 12/04/18 Page 5 of 7 1) A January 8, from Mr. Rechnitz to Mayor de Blasio suggesting that he attend the NYPD s Compstat meetings (as well as a follow-up on February 25, 2014 in which Mr. Rechnitz states, Heard you took my suggestion. ) 2) A February 26, invitation inviting Mr. Rechnitz to a Gracie Mansion reception; 3) Two s dated April 1, 2014 from Mr. Rechnitz to Mayor de Blasio offering a suggestion for the Department of Buildings Commissioner; 4) An April 28, from Mr. Rechnitz requesting to be on a committee that combats police corruption; 5) A June 29, from Mr. Rechnitz asking When do I start? on the commission to combat police corruption; 6) A September 30, from Mr. Rechnitz asking if Mayor de Blasio would like him to set up a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Mayor de Blasio s Personal Knowledge is Relevant to the Facts at Issue As a lay witness, testimony in the form of an opinion is admissible if it is rationally based on the witness s perception and helpful to determining a fact in issue. Fed. R. Evid Based on Mayor de Blasio s s alone, it is inarguable that he shared a relationship with Mr. Rechnitz the exact nature of which is in dispute and as such, possesses personal knowledge as to that relationship. Most concerning, because it has now been established that the Mayor did not preserve a number of s, he is the only person who can testify about the exact nature of these communications. We submit that the Mayor s personal perceptions of Mr. Rechnitz and the nature of their relationship is relevant to several facts at issue. The Federal Rules of Evidence permit the introduction of relevant evidence that is, evidence that has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and... is of consequence in determining the action. Fed. R. Evid To be relevant, evidences need only tend to prove the government s case, and evidence that adds context and dimension to the government s proof of the charges can have that tendency. United States v. Gonzalez, 110 F.3d 936, 941 (2d Cir. 1997). Evidence is relevant as direct evidence if it arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense, if it is inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense, or if it is necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial. United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39, 44 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Gonzalez, 110 F.3d at 942). Evidence of bad acts may similarly be admitted as direct evidence of the crime charged when it is offered to provide the jury with the complete story of the crimes charged such as when the evidence demonstrates the context of certain events relevant to the charged offense. United States v. Inserra, 34 F.3d 83, 89 (2d Cir. 1994). Such evidence is instead direct evidence of the charged crime. United States v. Martoma, 2014 WL at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2014). 5
6 Case 1:16-cr GHW Document 444 Filed 12/04/18 Page 6 of 7 In the instant matter, Mr. Rechnitz s testified that he violated the election laws together with Mr. Reichberg. The purpose of this testimony, which is obviously prejudicial to Mr. Grant as a co-defendant, was admitted, among other motives, to establish background evidence of Mr. Rechnitz s relationship with Mr. Reichberg. However, in light of Mr. Rechnitz s plea allocution, which lumps together the bribery of NYPD officers and politicians in one hodgepodge assortment of honest services fraud, the illegal campaign donations go beyond mere background evidence or prior bad acts. Rather, this activity is a crime to which Mr. Rechnitz pled guilty, and according to his testimony, a scheme conducted in coordination with Mr. Reichberg for the same purpose and with the same motive as the alleged bribery of NYPD officers. As such, any allegations against the Mayor are inexplicably intertwined with the evidence admitted concerning the instant offenses. The complexity of this multi-faceted conspiracy is further compounded by the fact that Mr. Rechnitz s testimony is false. As defense counsel has stated on numerous occasions, it does not believe that Mr. Rechnitz s interactions with Mayor de Blasio constitute bribery or any other illegal conduct. Aside from sweeping generalities, Mr. Rechnitz does not offer specific testimony that in exchange for his donations, the Mayor acted in his official capacity to remedy any particular personal dispute. Rather, he was put in touch with different departments to get an answer to questions. Tr In other words, Mr. Rechnitz was given the same treatment that any other civilian would ostensibly receive when contacting the Mayor s office with a problem. Based on the Mayor s public comments, we expect him to testify that no official acts, as defined by the governing honest services fraud laws, were undertaken in exchange for bribes or donations. This would discredit Mr. Rechnitz s entire testimony concerning his alleged political corruption schemes while also calling into question the propriety of his plea allocution. In addition, the Mayor s rebuttal of Mr. Rechnitz s version of events would be directly relevant to the larger fact at issue whether Mr. Rechnitz and Mr. Reichberg conspired together in a bribery scheme. Because the alleged bribery of NYPD officers and politicians was presented in such an intertwined light with Mr. Rechnitz and Mr. Reichberg working together to gain access and results in both instances it follows that evidence discrediting one scheme is relevant to the discrediting of the other. Therefore, Mayor de Blasio s personal knowledge as to his relationship with Mr. Rechnitz is extremely relevant to the crimes charged. Although Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, Fed. R. Evid. 403, the Mayor s motion to quash does not articulate any particular exclusionary basis but for the assertion his testimony would be cumulative. However, as explained above, the Mayor s testimony is sought for the exact opposite reason his personal knowledge is so unique and unavailable through other witnesses that his appearance is necessary and indispensible. Therefore, we submit no justifiable exclusion applies. 6
7 Case 1:16-cr GHW Document 444 Filed 12/04/18 Page 7 of 7 Mayor de Blasio s Testimony Impeaches Mr. Rechnitz The Mayor s motion to quash alleges that his testimony would be used for impeachment purposes on a collateral matter. We submit this reasoning is incorrect. Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness s credibility. Fed. R. Evid While extrinsic evidence offered for impeachment on a collateral issue is usually excludable, United States v. Purdy, 144 F.3d 241, 245 (2d Cir. 1998), the bias of a witness is not collateral and can be proven by extrinsic evidence. United States v. Harvey, 547 F.2d 720, 722 (2d Cir. 1976). Similarly, extrinsic evidence can be used to contradict a witness s prior testimony. United States v. Beverly, 5 F.3d 633, 639 (2d Cir. 1993). While we maintain that the Mayor s testimony is a rebuttal to direct evidence that forms the basis and background of the crimes charged, it also serves a secondary purpose of directly contradicting Mr. Rechnitz s testimony. Namely, the Mayor will be contradicting Mr. Rechnitz s assertion that a bribery scheme existed and that he received any special treatment or official mayoral action in exchange for his donations. Likewise, we expect the Mayor s testimony to also shed light on Mr. Rechnitz s own biases and motives. As evident in their exchanges, Mr. Rechnitz was, by all accounts, desperate to be politically influential. As he already testified, the appearance of wealth and power was extremely important to him. His conduct was largely dictated by this motive. As such, it is very likely that the Mayor s testimony will further expose Mr. Rechnitz s underlying biases and true reasons for cooperating. Lastly, though we believe the Mayor s testimony has direct relevancy above and beyond opinions on character, we submit that his testimony would nonetheless be proper to establish Mr. Rechnitz s character. Under Rule 405, evidence of a person s character can be proved by testimony about his reputation or in the form of opinion. Mayor de Blasio s personal wealth of information on Mr. Rechnitz makes him an ideal candidate to testify about such matters. Again, while we submit the Mayor s testimony will be elicited for purposes of its direct relevancy to the crimes charged, it would be permissible, despite the Mayor s assertion to the contrary in his motion to quash, to also offer opinions as to Mr. Rechnitz s character. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Court deny Mayor William de Blasio s motion to quash. Respectfully submitted, /s/ John Meringolo, Esq. CC: All counsel (via ECF); the New York City Law Department (via ) 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cr-000-vap Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 JOHN NEIL McNICHOLAS, ESQ. STATE BAR #0 McNicholas Law Office Palos Verdes Blvd., Redondo Beach, CA 0 (0) -00 (0) -- FAX john@mcnicholaslawoffice.com
More informationRule 613: That s not what you said before! By: Andy Moorman Assistant U.S. Attorney
Rule 613: That s not what you said before! By: Andy Moorman Assistant U.S. Attorney ATTACKING THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS The theory of attack by prior inconsistent statements is not based on the assumption
More informationCase 1:17-cr KBF Document 819 Filed 06/11/18 Page ORDERED. 1 of 8 GUIDELINES REGARDING APPROPRIATE USE OF 302 FORMS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
Case 1:17-cr-00350-KBF Document 819 Filed 06/11/18 Page ORDERED. 1 of 8 Post to docket. GUIDELINES REGARDING APPROPRIATE USE OF 302 FORMS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS 6/11/18 Hon. Katherine B. Forrest I. INTRODUCTION
More informationCase 1:02-cr PKC Document 54 Filed 08/15/08 Page 1 of 6 U.S. Department of Justice
Case 1:02-cr-01231-PKC Document 54 Filed 08/15/08 Page 1 of 6 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York BY HAND TO CHAMBERS United States District Judge Southern District
More information2016 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)
2016 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) In American trials, complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to ensure that
More informationCase 6:18-cr RBD-DCI Document 59 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 393 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Case 6:18-cr-00043-RBD-DCI Document 59 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 393 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. 6:18-cr-43-Orl-37DCI
More informationCase 1:10-cr RDB Document 85 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:10-cr-00181-RDB Document 85 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * * v. * * THOMAS ANDREWS DRAKE,
More informationCase 3:07-cr EDL Document 49 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 1 of 8
Case :0-cr-00-EDL Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN United States Attorney BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN Chief, Criminal Division WENDY THOMAS (NYBN 0 Special Assistant United States
More informationCRIMINAL. Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of New York Case Title: USA v. Motz Docket Number: 2:08CR00598 Expert(s): n/a
CRIMINAL Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of New York Case Title: USA v. Motz Docket Number: 2:08CR00598 Expert(s): n/a Mark the Correct Category X Crime Type LBL2 White Collar Crime
More information6.17. Impeachment by Instances of Misconduct
6.17. Impeachment by Instances of Misconduct (1) Subject to paragraph (c), (a) the credibility of a witness may be impeached on cross-examination by asking the witness about prior specific criminal, vicious,
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-3-2014 USA v. Victor Patela Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-2255 Follow this and additional
More informationFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (ADOPTED 9/4/2012) INDEX ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101 Scope... 1 Rule 102 Purpose and Construction... 1 ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE... 1 Rule 201
More informationFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 2018
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 2018 Effective July 1, 1975, as amended to Dec. 1, 2017 The goal of this 2018 edition of the Federal Rules of Evidence 1 is to provide the practitioner with a convenient copy
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No CR (Seitz)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. Case No. 11-20583-CR (Seitz) JOSE M. NOA, Defendant. / RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT NOTICE AND PROFFER OF EVIDENCE OF OTHER
More informationRules of Evidence (Abridged)
Rules of Evidence (Abridged) Article IV: Relevancy and its Limits Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would
More informationCase 1:08-cr EGS Document 126 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cr-00231-EGS Document 126 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) ) Crim. No. 08-231 (EGS) THEODORE
More informationEMPIRION EVIDENCE ORDINANCE
EMPIRION EVIDENCE ORDINANCE Recognized Objections I. Authority RULE OBJECTION PAGE 001/002 Outside the Scope of the Ordinance 3 II. Rules of Form RULE OBJECTION PAGE RULE OBJECTION PAGE 003 Leading 3 004
More informationCase 1:14-cv PAB-NYW Document 163 Filed 01/12/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:14-cv-03420-PAB-NYW Document 163 Filed 01/12/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Case 14-cv-03420-PAB-NYW ESMERALDO VILLANUEVA ECHON
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE
Houchins v. Jefferson County Board of Education Doc. 106 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE KELLILYN HOUCHINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 3:10-CV-147 ) JEFFERSON
More informationHow to Testify. Qualifications for Testimony. Hugo A. Holland, Jr., J.D., CFE Prosecutor, State of Louisiana
How to Testify Qualifications for Testimony Hugo A. Holland, Jr., J.D., CFE Prosecutor, State of Louisiana 2018 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. CPE PIN Instructions 2018 Association of Certified
More informationCase 2:10-cr CM Document 25 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:10-cr-20029-CM Document 25 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case Nos. 10-20029-01-CM KENNETH G. LAIN,
More informationFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07)
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07) In American trials complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to
More informationSIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE
SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...3 TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Title 1, Chapter 38...3 TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I: General Provisions...4 Article IV: Relevancy
More informationNo. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. Don H. Lester, Judge. August 30, 2018
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D16-1828 ROBERT ROY MACOMBER, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. Don H. Lester, Judge. August
More informationSIMULATED MBE ANALYSIS: EVIDENCE PROFESSOR ROBERT PUSHAW PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
SIMULATED MBE ANALYSIS: EVIDENCE PROFESSOR ROBERT PUSHAW PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW Editor's Note 1: This handout contains a detailed answer explanation for each Evidence question that appeared
More informationPlainSite. Legal Document. Missouri Eastern District Court Case No. 4:09-cv Jo Ann Howard and Associates, P.C. et al v.
PlainSite Legal Document Missouri Eastern District Court Case No. 4:09-cv-01252 Jo Ann Howard and Associates, P.C. et al v. Cassity et al Document 2163 View Document View Docket A joint project of Think
More informationCase 3:14-cr JRS Document 413 Filed 08/15/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID# 9631
Case 3:14-cr-00012-JRS Document 413 Filed 08/15/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID# 9631 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division UNITED STATES of AMERICA, v. Case No. 3:14-cr-12
More informationCase 1:18-cr TSE Document 93 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 1738
Case 1:18-cr-00083-TSE Document 93 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 1738 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationResponse To Motions In Limine, Knuth v. City of Lincoln et al, Docket No. 3:11-cv (C.D. Ill. Jul 01, 2011)
The John Marshall Law School The John Marshall Institutional Repository Court Documents and Proposed Legislation 7-1-2011 Response To Motions In Limine, Knuth v. City of Lincoln et al, Docket No. 3:11-cv-03185
More informationCase 1:05-cr RBW Document 271 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 271 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) CR. NO. 05-394 (RBW) v. ) ) I. LEWIS LIBBY, )
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 4, 2015 v No. 321381 Bay Circuit Court ABDULAI BANGURAH, LC No. 13-010179-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCase 1:14-cr JB Document 51 Filed 09/09/14 Page 1 of 6 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 1:14-cr-02783-JB Document 51 Filed 09/09/14 Page 1 of 6 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. Case No.: 14-CR-2783 JB THOMAS
More informationTRIAL OBJECTIONS. Considerations Effect on the jury Scrutinous Judiciously Effective/Disruptive
TRIAL OBJECTIONS Albert E. Durkin, Esq. Miroballi Durkin & Rudin LLC Considerations Effect on the jury Scrutinous Judiciously Effective/Disruptive Will the answer hurt your case? Protecting the record
More informationKeith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC
Keith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC (a) Preserving a Claim of Error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and:
More informationCharacter or Impeachment? PRESENTED BY JUDGE KATE HUFFMAN
Character or Impeachment? PRESENTED BY JUDGE KATE HUFFMAN Evid. R. 401 Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination
More informationCase 1:08-cv GJQ Doc #377 Filed 03/08/11 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#7955 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:08-cv-00361-GJQ Doc #377 Filed 03/08/11 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#7955 JAMES B. HURLEY and BRANDI HURLEY, jointly and severally, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
More informationNew Jersey Rules of Evidence Article VI - Witnesses
New Jersey Rules of Evidence Article VI - Witnesses N.J.R.E 601. General Rule of Competency Every person is competent to be a witness unless (a) the judge finds that the proposed witness is incapable of
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:08-cr-00888 Document 316 Filed 04/19/10 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) No. 08 CR 888 ) Hon. James B. Zagel
More informationDefendant Stephen Kerr, by and through undersigned counsel, herby moves
Case :-cr-0-jat Document Filed 0// Page of Michael D. Kimerer #00 Rhonda Elaine Neff #0 KIMERER & DERRICK, P.C. East Osborn, Suite 0 Phoenix, AZ 0 Telephone: (0) -00 Facsimile: (0) - Attorneys for Defendant,
More informationCase 1:10-cr LMB Document 215 Filed 09/27/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 1760 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 215 Filed 09/27/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 1760 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JEFFREY
More informationWhy? Test Specific Knowledge Course Coverage Test Critical Reading Objective Grading
Why? Test Specific Knowledge Course Coverage Test Critical Reading Objective Grading Part of a Continuum MBE Essay PT Memorize law Critical reading Identify relevant facts Marshal facts Communication skills
More informationRULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version 2003
Article I. General Provisions 101. Scope 102. Purpose and Construction RULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version 2003 Article IV. Relevancy and its Limits 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Evidence And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Dustin has been charged with participating
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No MDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SMITH GABRIEL Appellant No. 1318 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationCase 1:05-cr RBW Document 266 Filed 02/06/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 266 Filed 02/06/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) CR. NO 05-394 (RBW) v. ) ) I. LEWIS LIBBY, ) also
More informationDELAWARE HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
DELAWARE HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE In American trials, complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to ensure that
More informationCase: 1:16-cr TSB Doc #: 229 Filed: 11/22/17 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 5045 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:16-cr-00063-TSB Doc #: 229 Filed: 11/22/17 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 5045 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) Case No. 1:16-CR-63 v.
More informationCase 1:10-cr RDB Document 71 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 1:10-cr-00181-RDB Document 71 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * v. * Criminal No. 1:10-cr-0181-RDB THOMAS ANDREWS
More informationCase 3:14-cv KRG Document Filed 10/26/17 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:14-cv-00125-KRG Document 80 80 Filed 10/26/17 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GARY EVANS, JR., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-125 v.
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
Innocence Legal Team 1600 S. Main St., Suite 195 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tel: 925 948-9000 Attorney for Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Case No. CALIFORNIA,
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: MARCH 3, 2017; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2014-CA-001017-MR WILLIE PALMER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE FRED A. STINE,
More informationCase 1:11-cv WJM-CBS Document 127 Filed 12/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-01760-WJM-CBS Document 127 Filed 12/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 Civil Action No. 11-cv-01760-WJM-CBS GEORGE F. LANDEGGER, and WHITTEMORE COLLECTION, LTD., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationFederal Rules Of Evidence (2012)
of 27 2/26/2012 10:34 AM Published on Federal Evidence Review (http://federalevidence.com) Federal Rules Of Evidence (2012) The Federal Rules of Evidence Page provides the current version of the Federal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Dec 1 2014 16:28:06 2013-KA-01785-COA Pages: 9 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TREVOR HOSKINS APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-KA-01785-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationOF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT. vs. ** CASE NO. 3D THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO Appellee. **
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D., 2003 YAITE GONZALEZ-VALDES, ** Appellant, ** vs. ** CASE NO. 3D00-2972 THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 98-6042
More information2010 PA Super 230 : :
2010 PA Super 230 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JOHN RUGGIANO, JR., Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1991 EDA 2009 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of June 10, 2009 In
More informationTIPS ON OFFERING EVIDENCE RELEVANCE
TIPS ON OFFERING EVIDENCE by Curtis E. Shirley RELEVANCE Indiana Evidence Rule 401: Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Case 3:16-cr-00093-TJC-JRK Document 188 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID 5418 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, )
More informationOklahoma High School Mock Trial Program RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Rule 101. Scope
Oklahoma High School Mock Trial Program RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101. Scope These Simplified Federal Rules of Evidence (Mock Trial Version) govern the trial proceedings of the
More informationSTATE OF OHIO JEFFERY FRIEDLANDER
[Cite as State v. Friedlander, 2008-Ohio-2812.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90084 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFERY FRIEDLANDER
More informationThinking Evidentially
Thinking Evidentially Writing & Arguing Powerful Motions October 17, 2013 2013 www.rossdalecle.com Presentation of Proof Plaintiff (or prosecutor) presents case-in-chief, then rests; When witnesses are
More informationCase 1:17-cr ABJ Document 505 Filed 02/13/19 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 505 Filed 02/13/19 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., Defendant. Criminal No. 17-201
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Evidence/Remedies And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Green s Grocery Outlet
More informationOverview of Trial Proceedings Role of Judge/Jury, Markman Hearings, and Introduction to Evidence
Role of Judge/Jury, Markman Hearings, and Introduction to Evidence July 21, 2016 Drew DeVoogd, Member Patent Trial Proceedings in the United States In patent matters, trials typically occur in the federal
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL NO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL NO. 13-20772 Plaintiff, HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN v. RASMIEH YOUSEF ODEH, Defendant. / GOVERNMENT
More informationJAMAL RUSSELL, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant.
Case 1:16-cr-00396-GHW Document 618 Filed 05/04118 Paae 1 of E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED 5/4/2018 UNITED STATES,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JOSEPHINE COUNTY. CASE No. 07-CR-0043
Terri Wood, OSB # Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C. 0 Van Buren Street Eugene, Oregon 0 1--1 Fax: 1-- Email: twood@callatg.com Attorney for Benjamin Jones IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JOSEPHINE
More informationCase 1:15-cr PGG Document 64 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 20. S1 15 Cr. 692 (PGG)
Case 1:15-cr-00692-PGG Document 64 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DAVID POLOS and GLEN GLOVER, Plaintiff, Defendants.
More informationAdmissibility of Electronic Evidence
Admissibility of Electronic Evidence PAUL W. GRIMM AND KEVIN F. BRADY 2018 Potential Authentication Methods Email, Text Messages, and Instant Messages Trade inscriptions (902(7)) Certified copies of business
More information2011 RULES OF EVIDENCE
2011 RULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version Article I. General Provisions 101. Scope 102. Purpose and Construction Article IV. Relevancy and its Limits 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT GOVERNMENT S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF TESTIMONY BY EDINA RAKIC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) ) No. 2:13-CR-106 EDIN SAKOČ ) ) Defendant. ) GOVERNMENT S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF TESTIMONY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA15-4. Filed: 15 September 2015
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON P 3 15 CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIo'n, rr niirts
Aj 93661456 FILED IN THE COURT OF COMMON P 3 15 CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIo'n, rr niirts CLERn OS' LUUK I o JOHN BALLAS, ET AL. Case No: COUNT Y Plaintiff 93661456 Judge: MICHAEL E JACKSON LORENZO S. LALLI,
More informationMethods of impeachment. Contradiction Inconsistent statement Bad character for truthfulness Bias Lack of capacity or opportunity to observe
Methods of impeachment Contradiction Inconsistent statement Bad character for truthfulness Bias Lack of capacity or opportunity to observe 1 Oswalt rule: Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to impeach
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-13-2011 USA v. Rideout Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4567 Follow this and additional
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) CR. NO.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. CR. NO. 89-1234, Defendant. MOTION TO AMEND 28 U.S.C. 2255 MOTION Defendant, through undersigned counsel,
More information- against- Indictment No.: Defendant.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CRIMINAL TERM: PART K-19 P R E S E N T: HON. SEYMOUR ROTKER, Justice. -----------------------------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW
More informationJ. Max Wawrik Nancy Rosado Colon Law 16 Spring 2017
J. Max Wawrik Nancy Rosado Colon Law 16 Spring 2017 Law of Evidence KEY TERMS Adversary System (U.S.) A system of justice where the parties work in opposition to each other, and each party tries to win
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAULKNER COUNTY, ARKANSAS FIFTH DIVISION
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Faulkner County Circuit Court Rhonda Wharton, Circuit Clerk 2016-Oct-07 08:34:07 23CV-14-862 C20D04 : 15 Pages IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAULKNER COUNTY, ARKANSAS FIFTH DIVISION ROSEY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NUMBER 2015-KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
E-Filed Document Mar 22 2016 11:54:28 2015-KA-00623-COA Pages: 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NUMBER 2015-KA-00623 DENNIS THOMPSON APPELLANT V. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationCase 1:07-cr BSJ Document 45 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 1 of 10. PAUL C. BARNABA, : 07 Cr. 220 (BSJ)
Case 1:07-cr-00220-BSJ Document 45 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF
More informationCase 3:01-cv AWT Document 143 Filed 03/26/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : :
Case 301-cv-02402-AWT Document 143 Filed 03/26/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT PETER D. MAINS and LORI M. MAINS Plaintiffs, v. SEA RAY BOATS, INC. Defendant. CASE
More informationWhat s Your Theory of Admissibility: Character Evidence, Habit, and Prior Conduct
John Rubin UNC School of Government April 2010 What s Your Theory of Admissibility: Character Evidence, Habit, and Prior Conduct Issues Theories Character directly in issue Character as circumstantial
More informationCase 1:18-cr Document 16 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 150 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Case 1:18-cr-00083 Document 16 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 150 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Case No:
More informationCase 1:08-cr FB Document 187 Filed 09/25/09 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:08-cr-00415-FB Document 187 Filed 09/25/09 Page 1 of 6 U.S. Department of Justice JM:IJ:PSS:BS United States Attorney Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201
More informationCase 5:14-cr M Document 27 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:14-cr-00318-M Document 27 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) -vs- ) No. 5:14-cr-00318
More informationRESPONDENT MOTHER'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO The People of the State of Colorado in the Interest of Children: Petitioner: And Concerning:, Respondents COURT USE ONLY Attorney for Respondent Mother Douglas
More informationThe Limitation on Exclusion of Extrinsic Evidence
GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2014 The Limitation on Exclusion of Extrinsic Evidence Stephen A. Saltzburg George Washington University Law School, SSALTZ@law.gwu.edu Follow
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ************
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS WADE KNOTT, JR. STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 04-1594 ************ APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. 99-193524 HONORABLE
More informationEvidence Update. ISBA Criminal Law Seminar. April 17, 2015
Evidence Update ISBA Criminal Law Seminar April 17, 2015 Laurie Kratky Doré Ellis and Nelle Levitt Distinguished Professor of Law Drake University Law School Overview Focus upon Iowa Supreme Court s evidentiary
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:08-cr-00096-P Document 67 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID 514 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NO. 3:08-CR-0096-P
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2015-0074, State of New Hampshire v. Christopher Slayback, the court on November 18, 2015, issued the following order: The defendant, Christopher Slayback,
More informationUSCA No UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, SANTANA DRAPEAU, Appellant.
==================================================================== IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT USCA No. 14-3890 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. SANTANA DRAPEAU,
More informationPlainSite. Legal Document. Washington Western District Court Case No. 3:14-cr BHS USA v. Wright et al. Document 173. View Document.
PlainSite Legal Document Washington Western District Court Case No. :-cr-0-bhs USA v. Wright et al Document View Document View Docket A joint project of Think Computer Corporation and Think Computer Foundation.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 309-cr-00272-EMK Document 181 Filed 02/03/11 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. 3CR-09-028-01 MARK A. CIAVARELLA,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 STEVEN EDWARDS, v. Plaintiff, A. DESFOSSES, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Steven Edwards is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 309-cr-00272-EMK Document 155 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. 3CR-09-272 MARK A. CIAVARELLA, JR.
More informationCase 8:05-cr JDW-TGW Document 226 Filed 11/22/10 Page 1 of 18
Case 8:05-cr-00475-JDW-TGW Document 226 Filed 11/22/10 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : CASE
More informationIndex. Adjudicative Facts Judicial notice, Administrative Rules Judicial notice,
Index References in this index from 900 to 911 are to sections of the Wisconsin Rules of Evidence, and references from 1 to 33 are to chapters of this book. A Adjudicative Facts Judicial notice, 902.01
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI GEORGE LEE BUTLER APPELLANT v. NO. 200S-KA-0883-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF I~APPEALS Erin E. Pridgen,
More information