Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cr-00178/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cr-00178-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tuan Ngoc Luong
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TUAN NGOC LUONG,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cr-00178-HSG-1 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION IN LIMINE AND DENYING 

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 111, 112

The Government and Defendant submitted simultaneous motions in limine on January 5, 

2016. Dkt. Nos. 111, 112. The parties responded on January 12, 2016. Dkt Nos. 113, 114. The 

Court heard oral argument at the pre-trial conference on January 19, 2016. Having carefully 

considered the parties’ written and oral arguments, the Court DENIES the Government’s motion

and GRANTS the Defendant’s motion. 

The Government moves in limine to admit evidence relating to Defendant’s contacts with 

“other actual and potential victims” at trial, arguing that such evidence is inextricably intertwined 

with the charged robbery scheme, or, in the alternative, that it is evidence admissible under

Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 404(b). Dkt. No. 112 at 3. Defendant moves to “exclude all 

evidence related to the interactions between the person identified as Mr. Luong and others related 

to postings on Craigslist.” Dkt. No. 111 at 3. 

The Court finds the proffered evidence inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 

403. Rule 403 provides that the Court “may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is 

substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing 

the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative 

evidence.” Here, none of the Government’s proffered evidence relates to interstate 

communications. The Court finds that evidence of Defendant’s contacts within California (and 

Case 4:15-cr-00178-HSG Document 122 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

apparently within the Bay Area, based on the area codes in the proffered texts) has essentially no 

probative value on the point for which it is offered: did the charged robbery have an actual, 

probable or potential effect on interstate commerce? And any minimal probative value is 

substantially outweighed by the danger that the proffered evidence (which includes, among other 

things, an allegation that Defendant “defrauded” other people who responded to his posting) will 

cause unfair prejudice, confuse the issues, mislead the jury, and waste time. Because the proffered 

evidence does not materially bear on the issues to be decided, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s 

motion in limine. The Government may not present evidence of or reference the proffered

intrastate responses or contacts, and is limited to presenting evidence regarding the contacts 

between the Defendant and the victim of the robbery charged in the indictment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/20/2016

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cr-00178-HSG Document 122 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 2