Filed: Jul. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 25, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the United States' Motion in Limine to Exclude Improper Statements Regarding the Propriety of Prosecution (Doc. 97) filed on July 11, 2014. Although given the opportunity, Defendants did not timely file a response in opposition. ( See Doc. 61. ) Nonetheless, the Court heard oral arguments from all Parties at the Final Pretrial Conference held on Friday, July 25, 2014. This motion is now ripe for review. Pur
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the United States' Motion in Limine to Exclude Improper Statements Regarding the Propriety of Prosecution (Doc. 97) filed on July 11, 2014. Although given the opportunity, Defendants did not timely file a response in opposition. ( See Doc. 61. ) Nonetheless, the Court heard oral arguments from all Parties at the Final Pretrial Conference held on Friday, July 25, 2014. This motion is now ripe for review. Purs..
More
ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the United States' Motion in Limine to Exclude Improper Statements Regarding the Propriety of Prosecution (Doc. 97) filed on July 11, 2014. Although given the opportunity, Defendants did not timely file a response in opposition. (See Doc. 61.) Nonetheless, the Court heard oral arguments from all Parties at the Final Pretrial Conference held on Friday, July 25, 2014. This motion is now ripe for review. Pursuant to the reasons stated on the record and the reasons that follow, this motion in limine is due to be granted.
The Government seeks to exclude from the opening and closing statements in this case any remark (1) tending to suggest that the federal government should not be involved in such cases; (2) tending to suggest that local authorities ought to be handling this matter, rather than federal authorities; (3) tending to suggest that the matter in question is too small in scope to warrant federal involvement; (4) tending to attract attention to the participation of the Department of Justice attorney from Washington, DC, in the prosecution of this matter; (5) tending to refer to anti-government sentiment generally; and (6) referring to any other civil rights case or criminal case.
Upon consideration of the Government's arguments, the Court finds the motion is due to be granted. Such opening and closing arguments are not relevant pursuant to Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In addition, Defendants may not encourage jury nullification through opening or closing arguments. United States v. Hall, 188 Fed.Appx. 922, 925 (11th Cir. 2006) (criminal defendants are not entitled to a jury nullification jury instructions and their counsels may not argue jury nullification during closing arguments) (citing United States v. Trujillo, 714 F.2d 102, 105-06 (11th Cir. 1983)). Defendants concede they do not object to the motion and they will not compare this instant case to other high profile cases within the media.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
The United States' Motion in Limine to Exclude Improper Statements Regarding the Propriety of Prosecution (Doc. 97) is GRANTED.
