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. Dominick

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

October 18, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ANDRE DOMINICK, ET AL

         SECTION: “B” (2)

          ORDER

         After conferences with parties' counsel of record, and for reasons provided orally and herein, and upon further consideration of all parties' memoranda and exhibits relative to below motions, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Defendant Debra Becnel's Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Kenny Sanders, or any other Witness, regarding policies, training and procedure for correctional officers (Rec. Doc. 175) is DENIED. FRE 701; Johnson v. Barney, 360 Fed.Appx. 199 (2nd Cir. 2010);

         2. Government's Omnibus Motion in Limine (Rec. Doc. 178) is GRANTED to exclude argument and evidence that:

(a) this is a novel criminal case;
(b) the jury should nullify criminal responsibility because of a pending civil matter, but allowing limited cross-examination of witnesses on potential basis if they are parties to related civil actions;
(c) Defendants are facing punishment and sentencing if convicted;
(d) suggest prosecutorial misconduct and motives for charging decisions, but reserving Defendants' right to present the actions of others to show legality of their conduct;
(e) show policies or practices from other jails or prisons, but allowing relevant evidence on policies or training at time of the alleged offense and changes to same, if any, that were made in response to the victim's death at the facility at issue; a somewhat related defense request to introduce an association's findings about staffing issues is DENIED, subject to reconsideration;
(f) offer specific prior acts of good character or trait, but allowing testimony about reputation provided Defendants give notice of their intent to offer Rule 404(b)(2) character evidence about Defendants or the victim with written proffer(s) of same within five (5) days;
(g) seek introduction of exculpatory parts of Defendants' statements to others.

         The legal basis for above rulings follows:

         FRE 403; U.S. v. Trujillo, 714 F.2d 102, 105 (11th Cir. 1983); Shannon v. U.S., 512 U.S. 573 (1994); U.S. v. Cleveland, 1997 WL 253124 (EDLA 1997); FRE 404(a); FRE 405; U.S. v. Shipley, 546 Fed.Appx. 450 (5th Cir. 2003); FRE 801-802; U.S. v. Branch, 91 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 1996); and U.S. v. Crinel, 2016 WL 6441249 (EDLA 2016);

         3. Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Doctor's Testimony (Rec. Doc. 179) is DENIED IN PART. However, no expert opinion testimony will be allowed to state whether the victim was in obvious distress or whether Defendants knew the victim was in distress; all parties shall avoid offering cumulative testimony from witnesses, including experts; to the extent an expert witness ...


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.