U.S. v. BRANDEL, 2:13-CR-00439-KJD-VCF. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20151110h43
Visitors: 3
Filed: Nov. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER KENT J. DAWSON , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion in Limine (#136). Plaintiff filed an opposition (#151) to which Defendants responded (#157). Defendants move to exclude four pieces of evidence, namely: (1) Transactions and communications regarding the Bank of New York, (2) a Search Warrant Affidavit from South Carolina's "Sweet Tea Masquerade" case sent by Micelli to Kyle Gatton, (3) a Lawyer's Guide sent by Micelli to Kevin McDaniel, and (4) 1993 T
Summary: ORDER KENT J. DAWSON , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion in Limine (#136). Plaintiff filed an opposition (#151) to which Defendants responded (#157). Defendants move to exclude four pieces of evidence, namely: (1) Transactions and communications regarding the Bank of New York, (2) a Search Warrant Affidavit from South Carolina's "Sweet Tea Masquerade" case sent by Micelli to Kyle Gatton, (3) a Lawyer's Guide sent by Micelli to Kevin McDaniel, and (4) 1993 Tr..
More
ORDER
KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion in Limine (#136). Plaintiff filed an opposition (#151) to which Defendants responded (#157).
Defendants move to exclude four pieces of evidence, namely: (1) Transactions and communications regarding the Bank of New York, (2) a Search Warrant Affidavit from South Carolina's "Sweet Tea Masquerade" case sent by Micelli to Kyle Gatton, (3) a Lawyer's Guide sent by Micelli to Kevin McDaniel, and (4) 1993 Treasury Department Warnings sent by Micelli to Brandel. Defendants move for exclusion of this evidence pursuant to rules 403 and 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (Fed. R. Evid.).
Having read and considered the present motion, the Court finds that this evidence is admissible as intrinsic evidence pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. Rule 403 and as evidence of guilt pursuant to Rule 404. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion (#136).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
