USA v. Morgan, 2:17-CR-0064-KJD-GWF. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20171218a60
Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 15, 2017
Summary: ORDER KENT J. DAWSON , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion Concerning Extrinsic Conversations on Trial Exhibits (#88). Defendant has not filed a response to the motion. The Government anticipates that copies of the dashboard and body cameras of law enforcement officers that recorded events leading up to and surrounding the arrest of Defendant will be offered into evidence. Those recordings have been provided to Defendant. They contain conversations between of
Summary: ORDER KENT J. DAWSON , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion Concerning Extrinsic Conversations on Trial Exhibits (#88). Defendant has not filed a response to the motion. The Government anticipates that copies of the dashboard and body cameras of law enforcement officers that recorded events leading up to and surrounding the arrest of Defendant will be offered into evidence. Those recordings have been provided to Defendant. They contain conversations between off..
More
ORDER
KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion Concerning Extrinsic Conversations on Trial Exhibits (#88). Defendant has not filed a response to the motion.
The Government anticipates that copies of the dashboard and body cameras of law enforcement officers that recorded events leading up to and surrounding the arrest of Defendant will be offered into evidence. Those recordings have been provided to Defendant. They contain conversations between officers, between the officers and the co-defendant, and remarks by the codefendant. The Court finds that those conversations are not prejudicial. However, to the extent any prejudice does arise it is substantially outweighed by the probative value of the evidence, such as the state of mind of the participants. Finally, any prejudice could be abated with a limiting instruction to the jury. Accordingly, the Court finds that the recordings are admissible as part of the relevant video and audio evidence, subject to authentication.
Source: Leagle
