United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
STANWOOD R. DUVAL, Jr., District Judge.
Before the Court are the following motions:
a) United States' Motion in Limine to Preclude Nonrelevant Cross Examination (Doc. 27);
b) United States' Motion in Limine to Preclude Irrelevant and Confusing Argument (Doc. 28);
c) Motion in Limine Regarding Presentation of Defenses Contemplated by the Federal Rules of Procedure 12, 12.1, 12.2. and 16 (Doc. 29);
d) Notice of Intent and Incorporated Memorandum in Support of its Intent to Introduce Extrinsic Evidence Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) (Doc. 24);
(e) Government's Notice Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 609 and Supplemental Memorandum in Support of its Intent to Introduce Extrinsic Evidence Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) (Doc. 34).
The Court will address these seriatim.
a. United States' Motion in Limine to Preclude Nonrelevant Cross Examination (Doc. 27)
The United States moves the Court to limit the cross-examination by defendant Larry Rudolph ("Rudolph") of a government witness who was formerly a confidential informant for the government. The United States seeks to insure that the Court preclude questions concerning details of investigations other than the investigation in the instant case including the informant's other efforts to aid law enforcement. The defendant maintains that this request should be denied based on his Sixth Amendment constitutional right of confrontation.
As stated in United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2013), "Trial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on... crossexamination based on concerns about, among other things harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.'" Id. at 611 citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679. "The confrontation Clause is not violated if the jury has sufficient information from which to appraise a witness' bias and motives.'" United States v. Cooks, 209 F.3d 718, citing United States v. Cooks, 52 F.3d 101, 104 (5th Cir. 1995). As such,
IT IS ORDERED that a ruling on the United States' Motion in Limine to Preclude Nonrelevant Cross Examination (Doc. 27) is DEFERRED. In the event that the United States feels that cross-examination is "nonrelevant" then counsel shall object and approach the bench before questioning concerning prior testimony or other cases in which the Confidential Informant was involved may proceed.
b) United States' Motion in Limine to Preclude Irrelevant and Confusing Argument (Doc. 28)
In this motion, the United States seeks to limit cross-examination concerning news coverage of errors in the FBI Crime Lab's DNA unit. As the defendant has represented to the Court that he will not contest the admission of DNA evidence recovered from the interior of the vehicle because he ...