United States v. Wells, 3:13-cr-00008-SLG. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Alaska
Number: infdco20190826606
Visitors: 17
Filed: Aug. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2019
Summary: COURTESY NOTICE REGARDING FORTHCOMING ORDER SHARON L. GLEASON , District Judge . Pending before the Court is defendant James Michael Wells' Motion to Exclude the April 19, 2012 Government Driving Experiment Video. The Court issues this notice as a courtesy to the parties because they are awaiting a ruling on the motion as they prepare for trial to begin on September 9, 2019. The Court anticipates issuing a detailed order no later than August 30, 2019. The Court expects the order to include
Summary: COURTESY NOTICE REGARDING FORTHCOMING ORDER SHARON L. GLEASON , District Judge . Pending before the Court is defendant James Michael Wells' Motion to Exclude the April 19, 2012 Government Driving Experiment Video. The Court issues this notice as a courtesy to the parties because they are awaiting a ruling on the motion as they prepare for trial to begin on September 9, 2019. The Court anticipates issuing a detailed order no later than August 30, 2019. The Court expects the order to include ..
More
COURTESY NOTICE REGARDING FORTHCOMING ORDER
SHARON L. GLEASON, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is defendant James Michael Wells' Motion to Exclude the April 19, 2012 Government Driving Experiment Video. The Court issues this notice as a courtesy to the parties because they are awaiting a ruling on the motion as they prepare for trial to begin on September 9, 2019. The Court anticipates issuing a detailed order no later than August 30, 2019. The Court expects the order to include guidelines similar to the following:
• The Court declines to make a preliminary finding that the April 19 video is conditionally relevant. However, the Court will not permit the video to be introduced prior to a ruling being made regarding its conditional relevance. The government may introduce evidence at trial to support its position that the video is conditionally relevant pursuant to the standards set forth in Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 690 (1988), and then seek a ruling from the Court that the standard has been met before playing the video or showing the jury screen shots from the video.
• The government shall elect one northbound and one southbound pass shown in the April 19 video to play at trial, subject to the following conditions.1
• The government shall include on the April 19 video an on-screen label clearly indicating that the video is an "experiment that does not depict actual events and only depicts an opinion of what may have happened" or similar language.2 This same label shall appear on any still images extracted from the April 19 video.
• The Court will give the jury a cautionary instruction using similar language.
• The government shall not play the April 19 video or show still images from that video until after the jury has seen the April 12, 2012 T-1 surveillance video.
• Before the government plays any portion of the April 19 video or shows the jury still images from that video, a witness shall authenticate and lay foundation for the April 19 video. Accordingly, the April 19 video and still images from that video shall not be shown during the government's opening statement.
FootNotes
1. The forthcoming order will address the use of still images taken from the video.
2. See Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, W. Va., 81 F.3d 416, 425 (4th Cir. 1996) ("Although there is a fine line between a recreation and an illustration, the practical distinction is the difference between a jury believing that they are seeing a repeat of the actual event and a jury understanding that they are seeing an illustration of someone else's opinion of what happened.") (quotations and citation omitted).
Source: Leagle
