Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cr-00047/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cr-00047-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Brown
Defendant
Field Rat
Defendant
James Jackson
Defendant
Jug
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

ROGER K. LITMAN, 57634

Attorney at Law

Civic Center Square

2300 Tulare Street, Suite 230

Fresno, California 93721

Telephone: (559) 237-6000

Attorney for Defendant, JAMES JACKSON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CASE NO. 06-00047 OWW

)

Plaintiff, ) 

) ORDER AFTER HEARING

v. ) 

) 

JAMES JACKSON, )

GARY BROWN, )

)

 Defendants. )

____________________________)

This matter came on regularly for hearing, before the Hon. Oliver W.

Wanger, United States Senior District Court Judge, on November 27, 2006, for

hearing on the Motions in Limine filed on behalf of Defendant James Jackson on

November 13, 2006, later joined by co-defendant Gary Brown. The United States

of America was represented by Kimberly Sanchez, Assistant United States

Attorney. Defendant Gary Brown was personally present and represented by his

counsel Eric Green, Esq. James Jackson was personally present represented by

his attorney Roger K. Litman, Esq.

The court, having considered the motions in limine filed on behalf of Mr.

Jackson, the government’s response thereto filed on November 20, 2006, and the

argument of counsel, rendered the following rulings:

Defendants’ Motion in Limine I was granted. No evidence will be offered, or

Case 1:06-cr-00047-LJO Document 40 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 3
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

argument made by any counsel, that Mr. Jackson was in custody on a child support

matter when he was arrested and re-booked on the charges in the Indictment

returned on February 9, 2006.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine II was granted. Pursuant to Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 24(b) the court determined that the defendants in this action

would be allowed six joint peremptory challenges; each defendant was allowed

four separate peremptory challenges for a total of 14 preemptory challenges. 

In consideration of the additional peremptory challenges allowed to the

defendants, the government was allowed a total of seven peremptory challenges.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine III was granted subject to the stipulation of the

parties that the government would not be obligated to provide Jencks Act Material

or other requested discovery until after the next court hearing in this matter, on

December 4, 2006, and only in the event either or both defendants rejected the

pending offers of settlement and reconfirmed the matter for trial.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine IV was granted subject to the representation

by the government that it was reviewing discovery provided, and its files, to

confirm that all discovery required by law, and the orders of this court, were

provided to the defendants.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine V was granted. Absent a proper foundation,

no government witness will be permitted to testify to use of the nickname of “Jug”

or “Jugg” by Mr. Jackson or “Field Rat” by Mr. Brown.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine VI was granted based on the government’s

representation to the court that it did not intend to offer any evidence of other

crimes, wrongs or acts allegedly committed by the defendants pursuant to the

provisions of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), in its case in chief, but reserves the

right do so on rebuttal.

///

///

Case 1:06-cr-00047-LJO Document 40 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Approved as to Form and Content:

DATED: November 29, 2006 /s/ Kimberly Sanchez 

Kimberly Sanchez, AUSA

This was agreed to by Ms. Sanchez

via telephone, on November 29, 2006

Approved as to Form and Content:

DATED: November 29, 2006 /s/ Eric Green 

Eric Green, Esq.

This was agreed to by Mr. Green

via telephone, on November 28, 2006

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cr-00047-LJO Document 40 Filed 12/04/06 Page 3 of 3