Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. LASTER, 2:16-cr-81-FtM-38CM. (2017)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20170712b80 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2017
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the Government's Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Advising Jury of Penalties They Face (Doc. 275) filed on July 3, 2017. The Defendants have not responded and the time to do so has expired. (Doc. 238 at 2). This matter is ripe for review. The Government seeks to preclude Defendants from advising the jury of the penalties they face. (Doc. 275). The Court previously granted a Government mo
More

ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court on the Government's Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Advising Jury of Penalties They Face (Doc. 275) filed on July 3, 2017. The Defendants have not responded and the time to do so has expired. (Doc. 238 at ¶ 2). This matter is ripe for review.

The Government seeks to preclude Defendants from advising the jury of the penalties they face. (Doc. 275). The Court previously granted a Government motion seeking identical relief before the first trial. (Doc. 214). Based on the Court's prior ruling and established precedent, the Government's Motion is granted. See U.S. v. Cox, 696 F.2d 1294, 1298 (11th Cir. 1983) (noting that the court "does not approve of informing a jury of a minimum or maximum punishment."). Defendants' counsel are precluded from making statements to the jury regarding the potential penalties that the Defendants may face.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Government's Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Advising Jury of Penalties They Face (Doc. 275) is GRANTED.

DONE AND ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer