Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00803/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00803-15/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tammy A. Thomas
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TAMMY A THOMAS,

Defendant. /

No. CR 06-0803 SI

FINAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING

ORDER

On March 12, 2008, the Court held a final pretrial conference in the above captioned matter,

which is set for jury trial beginning March 24, 2008. All parties were represented by counsel. The

following matters were resolved:

1. Trial schedule: The parties expect that the case will take 8 or fewer days to complete.

The Court does not hear trials on Fridays (although deliberating juries may continue their deliberations

on Friday). The trial day runs from 8:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m., with a 15 minute break at 10:00 a.m., a

30 minute break at 12:00 p.m. and a 15 minute break at 2:00 p.m., all times approximate.

2. Number of jurors and challenges: There shall be a jury of twelve members, plus two

alternate jurors. The government shall have six peremptory challenges, the defendant shall have ten

peremptory challenges, and each side shall have one additional peremptory challenge for the alternates.

3. Voir dire: The court will conduct general voir dire, and counsel for each side shall have

up to 30 minutes total to question the panel. 

Case 3:06-cr-00803-SI Document 106 Filed 03/12/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

4. Jury instructions: The Court received proposed jury instructions from the parties,

which will be finalized before closing argument. 

5. Trial exhibits: No later than March 21, 2008, the parties shall submit their trial exhibits,

in binders with numbered tabs separating and identifying each exhibit. The court shall be provided with

three sets (for the court, the file and the witness) and each side shall provide one set for the other side.

6. Superseding indictment: On March 11, 2008, the grand jury returned a superseding

indictment against defendant Thomas, and she was arraigned on it on March 12, 2008. Upon inquiry

of counsel, defendant indicated that the superseding indictment did not require any delay in the currently

-scheduled trial date.

7. Motions in limine: Defendant filed 11 motions in limine, as follows:

1. Motion for order that indictment not be presented to jury: GRANTED.

2. Motion that government be precluded from referring to the 18 U.S.C. § 1623

charges as “perjury”: GRANTED. These charges are properly styled “False Declarations before

Grand Jury,” and counsel are instructed to refer to them in that way.

3. Motion to preclude government from introducing photo: Defendant seeks to

exclude a photo (TT-0257) on grounds of foundation (timing of photo), relevance and prejudice. Ruling

on this motion is DEFERRED to time of trial. Relevance will depend on timing/foundation and on

government’s other proof concerning use of steroids, and FRE 403 analysis will depend on state of other

proof. This photo is not to be used until further order of Court.

4. Motion to exclude expert witnesses for failure to produce Fed. R. Crim. P.

16(a)(1)(G) witness summaries: DENIED, provided government provides defendant with witness

summaries by Friday, March 14, 2008. 

5. Motion to exclude testimony by treating physician Dr. Weirman: Defendant

moves to exclude this evidence based on relevance and on physician-patient privilege. The relevance

objection appears to relate to the timing of the physical examination, and whether it will be relevant to

Case 3:06-cr-00803-SI Document 106 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

the government’s other evidence concerning steroid use. The motion based on relevance is DENIED,

without prejudice to renewal and/or motion to strike at time of trial. The motion based on physicianpatient privilege is DENIED. The government is ORDERED to produce a copy of any written waivers

signed by defendant. 

6. Motion to exclude from government’s case-in-chief defendant’s testimony at

USADA hearing in 2002: GRANTED. 

7. Motion to exclude from government’s case-in-chief defendant’s prior USADA

litigation: GRANTED.

8. Motion to exclude various improper questions from grand jury testimony: After

discussion with counsel, it was determined that the government plans to offer essentially all the grand

jury testimony given by defendant in evidence, probably having the questions and answers read aloud

to the jury. Defendant’s specific objection, based on undue vagueness, to the question which forms

Count II of the superseding indictment is OVERRULED. Other more general objections and

suggestions for redaction should be discussed and resolved between counsel. Any remaining objections

will be resolved at time of trial.

9. Motion to exclude non-verbal communication in grand jury transcript:

GRANTED.

10. Motion to exclude theory of conviction based on 1998 and 1999 ingestion of

testosterone: DENIED.

11. Motion to exclude urine test results submitted to USADA: DENIED.

8. Other motions:

1. Government motion to quash trial subpoenas: The government moves to quash

defendant’s subpoenas to attorneys and legal assistants in the U.S. Attorneys’ Office. The motion is

DENIED at this time as premature. After presentation of the government’s case-in-chief, the parties

should raise this question again, and defendant will be required to make an offer of proof as to the

appropriateness of the subpoenas. These and the other government witnesses subpoenaed by defendant

need not appear, if at all, until the completion of the government’s case-in-chief.

Case 3:06-cr-00803-SI Document 106 Filed 03/12/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss obstruction of justice count: Defendant moves to

dismiss the 18 U.S.C. § 1503 obstruction of justice count (Count IV of the original indictment, Count

VI of the superseding indictment) for failure to allege materiality and for vagueness. The motions are

DENIED. 

3. Defendant’s discovery motions: Some of the documents sought (unredacted

transcript of Kelsey Dalton) have been provided. The parties are to discuss and resolve the remaining

disputes, and to bring any unresolved disputes to the Court on Friday, March 14, 2008.

4. Conte motion for protective order re subpoena to produce documents: Thirdparty witness Victor Conte was subpoenaed by defendant to produce various documents, some of which

he received subject to protective order and/or under seal from the government. After discussion, all

parties agreed that the prior protective and/or sealing ORDERS ARE LIFTED, to the extent that Mr.

Conte may produce the documents under subpoena to defendant.

5. Defendant’s motion to dismiss indictment: Defendant moves to dismiss the

indictment based on government misconduct, for disclosure of defendant’s medical information in pretrial filings. The Court finds that there was no misconduct, based either on timing or content. The

motion is DENIED.

6. Defendant’s renewed motion to exclude AUSA Nedrow from trial: Defendant

reasserts her motion to prevent AUSA Nedrow from acting as trial counsel, based on the advocatewitness rule and the rule against vouching by the prosecution. The motion is DENIED without

prejudice to renewal during trial. The government has several attorneys working on this trial, so it is

not clear which matters or witnesses Mr. Nedrow will handle; the advocate-witness and vouching

concerns may never arise. Should the concerns present themselves in concrete form, the Court will

reconsider this question and the other government counsel would be required to proceed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2008 _____________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cr-00803-SI Document 106 Filed 03/12/08 Page 4 of 4