Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cr-00144/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cr-00144-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
USA
Plaintiff
Mikal Xylon Wilde
Defendant

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIKAL XYLON WILDE,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. CR-12-0144 EMC 

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

ORDER

I. TRIAL DATE & LENGTH OF TRIAL

Jury completion of questionnaire shall occur on February 2, 2015. Jury voir dire and trial

will commence on February 3, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor. (Note: Jury

questionnaires will not be filled out on January 30, 2015 as discussed at the January 12, 2015

pretrial conference because a jury pool has already been subpoenaed for February 2). The parties

expect the trial to last roughly four, possibly five, weeks, including opening statements and closing

arguments. Trial shall be conducted from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (or slightly longer to finish a

witness), with one 15-minute break and one 30-minute lunch break. If necessary, the Court may

extend any trial day. Parties must arrive by 8:00 a.m., or earlier as needed for any matters to be

heard out of the presence of the jury. The jury shall be called at 8:30 a.m. The trial week is Monday

through Friday, excluding holidays. Thursdays are dark, absent further order. Trial will not be held

February 16, 2015. 

Case 3:12-cr-00144-EMC Document 135 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 16
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

II. PROCEDURE FOR EXHIBITS AT/DURING TRIAL

A. No later than the end of each trial day, counsel shall inform opposing counsel of which

exhibits (including demonstrative evidence), if any, he or she intends to introduce during the

next trial day and, if necessary, with respect to which sponsoring witness. If any such

exhibits are objected to, both counsel shall notify the Court after the jury is excused for the

day, and shall identify the exhibits at issue and the objections. The Court will then schedule

a conference that afternoon or the following morning before trial to resolve the dispute.

B. At the end of each trial day, counsel shall also provide opposing counsel with a tentative

preview of the exhibits he or she intends to introduce during the trial the day after next. 

Parties are directed to make a good faith effort to ensure such previews are as accurate as

possible.

C. With respect to exhibits or demonstratives to be used on the first day of trial, counsel shall

inform opposing counsel of which exhibits or demonstratives, if any, he or she intends to

introduce by Thursday, January 29, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. If any such materials are objected

to, both counsel shall notify the Court by January 30, at 2:00 p.m., and shall identify the

materials at issue and the objections. The Court will then address the dispute on the first day

of trial, at 1:00 p.m., February 2, 2015 when the Court will hold a final pretrial conference

to discuss any last minute issues. 

D. If a party intends to use a projector or other equipment to show an exhibit (or demonstrative)

to the jury, that equipment shall be set up and ready for use by 8:30 a.m. each day. The

parties should immediately file with the Court, if necessary, administrative requests to bring

projectors and/or other equipment to the courthouse for use at trial.

III. PROCEDURE FOR WITNESSES AT/DURING TRIAL

A. Each party shall be prepared, during its case in chief or any rebuttal, to present its next

witness. At any time, if the party whose case is being presented is not prepared to present its

next witness, that party shall be deemed to have rested that portion of its case. No further

witnesses shall be permitted by the party who has so rested in that portion of the case (e.g.,

case in chief or rebuttal).

Case 3:12-cr-00144-EMC Document 135 Filed 01/13/15 Page 2 of 16
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

B. Counsel are expected to cooperate with each other in the scheduling and production of

witnesses, including informing one another of witness order. At the end of each trial day,

counsel shall give opposing counsel notice of which witnesses will be testifying on the

following day. At that time, counsel shall also provide a tentative preview of witnesses who

are expected to testify the day after next. Witnesses may be taken out of order if necessary. 

Every effort shall be made to avoid calling a witness twice (as an adverse witness and later as

a party’s witness).

C. Only one lawyer for each party may examine or cross-examine any single witness.

D. If a witness is testifying at the time of a recess or adjournment and has not been excused, the

witness shall be seated back on the stand when the Court reconvenes. If a new witness is to

be called immediately following recess or adjournment, the witness should be seated in the

front row, ready to be sworn in.

E. Counsel shall refrain from eliciting testimony regarding any undisputed facts as set forth in

any stipulation filed with the Court. The Court may read to the jury such undisputed facts at

appropriate points in the trial.

F. Witnesses shall be excluded from the courtroom until the total completion of their testimony,

including rebuttal testimony, if any. 

IV. OTHER PROCEDURES AT TRIAL

A. To make an objection, counsel shall rise, say “objection,” and briefly state the legal ground

(e.g., hearsay or relevancy). There shall be no speaking objections or argument from either

counsel unless requested by the Court.

B. Bench conferences, or the equivalent of sidebars, will not be permitted absent truly

extenuating circumstances. Disputes regarding exhibits shall be resolved as set forth in Part

II, supra. Any other disputes or problems should be addressed either before the trial day

commences, at the end of the trial day, or during a recess, if necessary.

V. STIPULATIONS OF FACT

The Court is informed that the parties have yet to reach any stipulations of fact. The

Government has further represented that defense counsel “has stated that they will not be stipulating

Case 3:12-cr-00144-EMC Document 135 Filed 01/13/15 Page 3 of 16
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

to any facts for this trial.” Government’s Trial Brief at 6 (Docket No. 118); see also Defendant’s

Trial Brief at 1 (Docket No. 130). Defense counsel informed the Court at the hearing that it is not

currently prepared to enter into any stipulations. However, Defense counsel agreed to further meet

and confer with the Government regarding possible stipulations. 

As stated at the pretrial conference, the Court expects the parties to stipulate to those matters

(including authenticity and chain of custody) over which there is no reasonable basis for dispute. 

Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to continue to meet and confer regarding possible

stipulations. The parties are further ORDERED to file a joint statement no later than Friday,

January 23, 2015, addressing those facts to which the parties have stipulated. If a dispute remains

as to such issues, they shall specify each such dispute on said date; the joint filing shall state, with

particularity, the basis for disputing the matter.

VI. GOVERNMENT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

A. Government’s Motion in Limine No. 1 (Docket No. 117): Defendant May Not Introduce His

Own Prior Statements

In its first motion in limine, the Government seeks to prohibit Defendant Wilde from

introducing into evidence his own out-of-court statements, which the Government contends are

inadmissible hearsay. According to the Government, Defendant Wilde “may have made a number

of statements setting forth his defense in this case,” for instance during jail calls or in statements

made to other witnesses. The Government contends that while the Government may permissibly

offer such out-of-court statements into evidence pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence – namely,

Rule 801(d)(2)(A), which provides that out-of-court statements offered against a party opponent are

not hearsay – Defendant Wilde may not. Moreover, the Government argues that if it chooses to

introduce just portions of certain of Defendant Wilde’s out-of-court statements (presumably the

inculpatory portions), Defendant Wilde may not introduce other portions of those same statements

(presumably the exculpatory ones), even for completeness. 

The Government correctly notes that the statements of an opposing party are typically

admissible against that party pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A). See Fed. R. Evid.

801(d)(2)(A). The Government is also correct that Defendant Wilde may not generally seek

Case 3:12-cr-00144-EMC Document 135 Filed 01/13/15 Page 4 of 16
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

5

admission of his own hearsay statements, even if the Government chooses to admit just portions of

those same statements. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, a criminal defendant’s “non-selfinculpatory statements are inadmissible even if they were made contemporaneously with other selfinculpatory statements” admitted by the Government. United States v. Ortega, 203 F. 3d 675, 682

(9th Cir. 2000) (citing Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 599 (1994)). “The selfinculpatory statements, when offered by the government, are admissions by a party-opponent and

are therefore not hearsay . . . but the non-self-inculpatory statements are inadmissible hearsay.” Id.;

see also United States v. Nakai, 413 F.3d 1019, 1022 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that defendant may

not introduce by cross-examination of a government witness the defendant’s own exculpatory outof-court statement). 

Defendant Wilde opposes the Government’s motion in part. Defendant Wilde concedes that

he may not introduce his own unrecorded out-of-court statements, but argues that Federal Rule of

Evidence 106 – often referred to as the rule of completeness – would permit him to admit additional

relevant portions of his recorded out-of-court statements to the extent those portions “in fairness

ought to be considered at the same time” as the Government’s evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 106; see also

United States v. Collicott, 92 F.3d 973, 982-83 (9th Cir. 1996) (describing Rule 106 as the “rule of

completeness” and explaining that the rule allows a party to introduce additional portions of a

document or recording when her adversary admits only a portion of the document or recording). 

Defendant Wilde’s position has some merit. 

In general, the Ninth Circuit has expressed the view that even where the rule of completeness

would apply, exclusion of a defendant’s exculpatory statements is appropriate where those

statements “would still have constituted inadmissible hearsay.” Ortega, 203 F.3d at 682 (citation

omitted). Or, put more directly, “Rule 106 does not compel admission of otherwise inadmissable

hearsay evidence.’” Collicott, 92 F.3d at 983 (quoting Phoenix Associates III v. Stone, 60 F.3d 95,

103 (2d Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Burreson, 643 F.2d 1344, 1349 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding

that district court properly exercised its discretion to exclude inadmissible hearsay where defendant

had requested that such hearsay be admitted pursuant to Rule 106). 

Case 3:12-cr-00144-EMC Document 135 Filed 01/13/15 Page 5 of 16
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

6

However, at least one district court in this Circuit--citing Ortega and Collicott--has noted

that while the “Rule of Completeness cannot serve as an end run around the prohibition on

inadmissible hearsay, this principle does not allow the Government to offer abridged portions of

statements that distort the meaning of a statement.” United States v. Castro-Cabrera, 534 F. Supp.

2d 1156, 1161 n. 6 (C.D. Cal. 2008). As the Castro-Cabrera court explained, “the Rule of

Completeness was designed to prevent the Government from offering a ‘misleading-tailored

snippet’” of testimony. Id. at 1160 (quoting Collicott, 92 F.3d at 983). Thus, as the court found, the

“Rule of Completeness warrants admission of statements in their entirety when the Government

introduces only a portion of inextricably intertwined statements.” Id. (emphasis added). 

Thus, while it is true that Rule 106 “cannot be used to trump the normal rules concerning the

admissibility of evidence,” id. at 1161, the Federal Rules of Evidence will not allow the Government

to admit misleading snippets of Defendant Wilde’s out-of-court statements as party admissions,

while excluding other out-of-court statements that provide context to the Government’s evidence. 

Accordingly, to the extent the Government seeks to admit a “misleadingly-tailored snippet” of

Defendant Wilde’s out-of-court statements, the Court will allow Defendant Wilde to present the

statement in greater context “in order to avoid the injustice of having the meaning of [his] statement

distorted by its lack of context.” Castro-Cabrera, 534 F. Supp. 2d at 1161. Because such “analysis

must be done on a case-by-case basis,” id., the Court reserves ruling on the Government’s motion in

limine at this time. 

As the Court stated at the pre-trial hearing, the Government must inform the defense at least

one day in advance if it intends to introduce Defendant Wilde’s out-of-court statements. See Part

II.A, supra. If there is a dispute regarding whether the Government’s proposed statement(s) requires

further context in order to be properly introduced, such a dispute will be raised with the Court at

8:00 a.m. before the start of the relevant trial day, as required by the general trial procedures set out

in this Order. 

B. Government’s Motion in Limine No. 2 (Docket No. 117): Punishment

The Government’s second motion in limine seeks to preclude Defendant from making any

reference to the potential sentence Defendant Wilde might face if convicted. The Government

Case 3:12-cr-00144-EMC Document 135 Filed 01/13/15 Page 6 of 16
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

7

correctly notes the general rule that “it is inappropriate for a jury to consider or be informed of the

consequences of their verdict.” United States v. Frank, 956 F.2d 872, 879 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Defendant Wilde does not oppose the Government’s motion. Accordingly, the Court

GRANTS the Government’s second motion in limine. 

C. Government’s Motion in Limine No. 3 (Docket No. 117): Use of State Law Enforcement

Personnel or Complaint Records

In its third motion in limine, the Government argues that Defendant Wilde should be

prohibited from questioning any law enforcement officer about matters contained in his or her

personnel file and/or relating to officer disciplinary matters unless Defendant Wilde first files an

appropriate motion in limine seeking admission of such information. The Government cites this

Court’s General Orders, and specifically General Order 69, in support of its motion. See N.D. Cal.

General Order No. 69 (Process for Subpoenaing & Using Personnel or Complaint Records of State

Law Enforcement Officers Testifying in Federal Court). 

General Order 69 provides that if a criminal defendant wishes to admit information from a

state law enforcement officer’s personnel or disciplinary file, “the defendant shall make an

appropriate in limine motion seeking admission of the records at issue.” See id. General Order 69

further requires that any such motion in limine be filed “no fewer that 14 days before the pretrial

conference.” Id. Because Defendant Wilde did not file any such motion in limine, and because he

does not oppose the Government’s motion, the Court GRANTS the Government’s third motion in

limine. 

D. Government’s Motion in Limine No. 4 (Docket No. 117): Extrinsic Evidence for

Impeachment

In its fourth motion in limine, the Government seeks to preclude the Defendants from

admitting extrinsic evidence for the purpose of impeaching Government witnesses’ character for

truthfulness or untruthfulness. The Government correctly notes that extrinsic act evidence is

Case 3:12-cr-00144-EMC Document 135 Filed 01/13/15 Page 7 of 16
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

1

 For instance, Rule 609 permits the admission of evidence of certain criminal convictions if

relevant to undermine a witness’ character for truthfulness. See Part VII.A, infra. The Government

acknowledged at the pretrial hearing that at least some of its witnesses have prior criminal

convictions that may be the proper subject of impeachment under Rule 609. As indicated at the

hearing, Defendant Wilde will not be allowed elicit details of any prior conviction beyond the nature

and description of the charge(s) for which the witness was convicted, the time and place of the

conviction, and the sentence imposed.

2

 The Government concedes that Defendant Wilde himself may testify that an alleged victim

engaged in specific acts of violence to the extent Defendant Wilde had personal knowledge of those

acts at the relevant time, if that testimony is elicited to prove that Defendant Wilde believed that the

victim was violent and his belief was a reasonable one. See Docket No. 117 at 6; see also United

States v. James, 169 F.3d 1210, 1214-15 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (permitting defendant to testify

about victim’s past acts of violence where such testimony was relevant to defendant’s state of mind).

8

typically inadmissible to prove a witness’s character for truthfulness under Federal Rule of Evidence

608(b), subject to certain exceptions.1

Defendant responds that the Government has not “defined what it means by ‘extrinsic

evidence’ or noted any specific instances in this case in which it anticipates” Defendant Wilde will

attempt to admit such evidence. Docket No. 129 at 2. Given that a number of context-specific

exceptions apply to Rule 608(b), and given that the Government has not provided the Court with any

concrete examples where Defendant Wilde may attempt to admit extrinsic evidence for

impeachment of a witnesses’ character for truthfulness, the Court declines to rule on the

Government’s motion at this time. To the extent the Government believes Defendant Wilde is

attempting to introduce extrinsic acts evidence in violation of Rule 608, the Government should

object contemporaneously. 

E. Government’s Motion in Limine No. 5 (Docket No. 117): Exclude Evidence of Specific

Acts of Violence by a Victim

In its final motion in limine, the Government seeks to prevent Defendant Wilde from

introducing evidence of specific violent acts taken by any victim, where that evidence is being used

to show that the victim has (or had) a violent character. The Government is concerned that

Defendant Wilde may argue self-defense, and then attempt to prove by way of specific acts of

violence that one or more of his alleged victims has/had a propensity towards violence.

The Government is correct that the Ninth Circuit does not typically permit “a defendant

claiming self-defense to introduce specific acts demonstrating his victim’s propensity for violence.”2

Case 3:12-cr-00144-EMC Document 135 Filed 01/13/15 Page 8 of 16
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 asks that should Defendant Wilde attempt to offer evidence of an alleged

victim’s reputation for violence, or opinion testimony regarding an alleged victim’s violent

character, that Defendant Wilde be required to make an evidentiary proffer outside the presence of

the jury regarding his witness’ (or witnesses’) foundation for such testimony. The Government is

(reasonably) concerned that in laying the foundation for such opinion or reputation testimony,

defense counsel might inquire into specific acts of violence committed by the victim. The Court

grants the Government’s request. Should Defendant Wilde seek to elicit testimony regarding a

victim’s character for violence, Defendant Wilde will need to make an appropriate proffer outside

the presence of the jury so that inadmissible specific acts evidence is not “smuggled” into the case

under the guise of presenting admissible character evidence. 

9

United States v. Keiser, 57 F.3d 847, 855 (9th Cir. 1995). Rather, to the extent a victim’s character

or propensity for violence is somehow relevant, the defendant may only prove that fact by way of

reputation or opinion testimony.3

 See id. (“[V]ictim character evidence introduced to support a

claim of self-defense or defense of another should be limited to reputation or opinion evidence.”). 

See also Fed. R. Evid. 405. Moreover, to the extent Defendant Wilde seeks to prove the victim’s

character for violence, admissibility of evidence of character is subject to Rule 404. 

In his response to the Government’s motion, Defendant Wilde states that “[a]t this juncture,

the defense does not anticipate, under the prosecution’s theory of the case, this issue [of specific

violent acts of victim] being raised.” Docket No. 129 at 2. Defendant Wilde further notes that

“should acts of violence by a victim become relevant from the perspective of the defense, the

defense will request a hearing on such an issue.” Id. The Court will defer ruling on this issue at this

time. Defendant is reminded that he must disclose any intention to seek admission of evidence of

specific acts of violence by a victim at least one trial day before he attempts to introduce such

evidence. If the Government objects to such evidence, the parties will raise their objections to the

Court at 8:00 a.m. on the relevant day outside the presence of the jury pursuant to this Court’s trial

procedures. See Part II.A, supra. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:12-cr-00144-EMC Document 135 Filed 01/13/15 Page 9 of 16
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

10

VII. DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

A. Defendant Wilde’s Motion in Limine No. 1 (Docket No. 114): Admit Evidence Regarding

Guatemalan Conviction Records

In his first motion in limine, Defendant Wilde asks this Court permit him to introduce records

showing that one of his alleged victims, Mr. Lopez-Paz, was previously convicted of bribery in his

home country of Guatemala. Mr. Lopez-Paz is expected to testify as a witness at trial. 

Defendant Wilde spends a great deal of effort arguing in his motion why Mr. Lopez-Paz’s

foreign conviction records are admissible and not hearsay. The Government candidly agrees that

foreign conviction records are admissible, and that “in the event that defendant can produce a

legitimate copy of a conviction document, then the government would not contest its admissibility,

so long as defendant can show a legitimate purpose for its admission.” Docket No. 123 at 3. As the

Government concedes, such an admissible purpose would be to undermine Mr. Lopez-Paz’s

credibility as a witness. See Fed. R. Evid. 609(a) (allowing impeachment by evidence of a criminal

conviction in order to “attack[] a witness’s character for truthfulness”). The Government does not

dispute that Rule 609(a) applies to foreign convictions. 

Where the Government and Defendant Wilde part ways is whether Defendant Wilde has

presented sufficient evidence that Mr. Lopez-Paz was actually convicted of a crime in Guatemala. 

Having reviewed Defendant Wilde’s evidentiary submissions made in connection with his motion in

limine, the Court recognized the Government’s concerns. Defendant Wilde submitted no

authenticating declaration or affidavit with his materials, submitted copious translations (of nonauthenticated documents) without including the originals, and did not make clear to the Court

precisely where in his submissions he contends that the fact of Mr. Lopez-Paz’s conviction is

proved. Consequently, the Court ordered Defendant Wilde to submit a more fulsome evidentiary

proffer aimed at curing these defects. See Docket No. 128. 

The Court has now throughly reviewed Defendant’s evidentiary proffer. See Docket Nos.

132-33. As stated on the record at the pre-trial conference, the Court is of the initial view that

Defendant Wilde has sufficiently established that Mr. Lopez-Paz was convicted in Guatemala of the

Case 3:12-cr-00144-EMC Document 135 Filed 01/13/15 Page 10 of 16
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

 At the pretrial hearing, Government’s counsel suggested that if evidence of Mr. LopezPaz’s conviction is admissible under Rule 609, the Court would still need to consider whether to

admit such evidence under other evidentiary rules, such as Rule 403. This is incorrect. Where the

crime of conviction is one that “required proving -- or the witness’s admitting -- a dishonest act or

false statement,” Fed R. Evid. 609(a)(2), such evidence will automatically be admitted. See id.

(noting that evidence of conviction for a crime involving a dishonest act “must be admitted”). 

11

offense of “passive bribery.”4

 However, the Court agreed to defer ruling on Defendant Wilde’s first

motion in limine until the Government has had more time to review Defendant Wilde’s somewhat

voluminous filing. Among other things, the Government requested time to seek its own certified

translation of the Spanish language documents at issue. The Government is hereby ORDERED to

file any remaining objections to the admissibility Defendant Wilde’s preferred documents by 5:00

p.m. on Thursday, January 22, 2015. Such a filing shall not exceed seven (7) pages in length. If

necessary, Defendant Wilde may file a response to the Government’s remaining objections, similarly

not to exceed seven (7) pages in length, by Thursday, January 29, 2015. If a hearing is necessary,

the Court may hold one to resolve this issue on Friday, January 30, 2015.

B. Defendant Wilde’s Motion in Limine No. 2 (Docket No. 116): Preclude Evidence of

Defendant’s Prior Marijuana Conviction

In his second and final motion in limine, Defendant Wilde argues that the Government

should be prohibited from informing the jury of his prior arrest and conviction for illegally

possessing and transporting marijuana. Defendant Wilde argues that such prior “bad acts” evidence

is inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which provides that “[e]vidence of a crime,

wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a

particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1).

While Rule 404(b)(1) prohibits the use of “bad acts” evidence to prove action in

conformance with character, Rule 404(b)(2) provides, in relevant part, that such evidence “may be

admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,

knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). Thus, for

example, should Defendant Wilde argue that he did not know that the marijuana allegedly grown on

his property was, in fact, marijuana, the Government might seek admission of Defendant Wilde’s

prior conviction to prove Defendant Wilde’s knowledge of what marijuana looks or smells like. See

Case 3:12-cr-00144-EMC Document 135 Filed 01/13/15 Page 11 of 16
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

12

id. Of course, as Defendant Wilde correctly points out in his motion in limine, even if evidence of

prior bad acts is admissible under Rule 404(b)(2), the Court may nevertheless exclude it under

Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which gives the Court discretion to “exclude relevant evidence if its

probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,

misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed.

R. Evid. 403. 

At this juncture, the Court cannot rule on Defendant Wilde’s motion because neither the

Defendant nor Government know whether (or for what purpose) Defendant Wilde’s past conviction

might be used during his upcoming trial. Consequently, the Court defers ruling on the motion at this

time. Again, counsel for the Government is reminded that should it seek to obtain admission of

Defendant Wilde’s prior conviction, such intent shall be disclosed to Defendant Wilde at least one

trial day in advance, and any objections properly raised with the Court before the start of the trial

day. 

VIII. WITNESSES

Below is a list of the witnesses the Government and Defendant currently intend to call or

may call as the need arises. The parties shall not offer any witness other than those identified on the

below final witness lists absent good cause and express leave of the Court. The parties are further

ORDERED to file a version of their respective witness list that provides a reasonable estimate of

the time that the party expects each of its own witnesses to testify for on direct examination. 

Witness lists with the required time estimates shall be filed no later than Friday, January 23, 2015.

A. Government Witnesses

1. Carlos Alfaro, U.S. DEA Special Agent

2. Jamie Barney, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Deputy

3. Christopher Bigelow

4. Leslie Borges, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Deputy

5. Philip Buihner, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Sergeant

6. John Chappell, DEA Chemist

7. Ruben Childs

Case 3:12-cr-00144-EMC Document 135 Filed 01/13/15 Page 12 of 16
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

13

8. Dwayne Christian, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Deputy

9. Dale Cloutier, California Department of Justice Senior Criminalist

10. Matthew Collar, FBI Special Agent

11. Michael Darling, Redding Police Department Crime Scene Investigation Examiner

12. Carlos Deonis-Salazar

13. Timothy Farrell, California Fire Firefighter

14. Josh Faulkner, California Fire Captain

15. Dr. Marcella Fierro

16. Megan Gallagher, California Department of Justice Criminalist

17. Brad Gill, United States Marshal Service Deputy

18. Dr. Thomas Gill

19. Donald Graham

20. Richard Grimm (formerly Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Forensic Examiner)

21. Gary Harmor, Serological Research Institute, Executive Director and Chief Forensic

Serologist

22. Fernando Lopez-Paz

23. Clarita Madrid

24. Susan Marvin, FBI Forensic Examiner/Metallurgist

25. Kevin Miller, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Deputy

26. Allison Murphy, California Fire Engineer

27. Gregory Musson, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Detective

28. Craig Ogino, Chula Vista Police Department Crime Lab, Director and Criminalist

29. William Posey, Central Valley Toxicology, Inc., Director

30. Karen Quennell (former Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Evidence Technician)

31. Joseph Raschke, FBI, Cellular Analysis Survey Team Special Agent

32. Donald See, FBI, Computer Analysis Response Team, Forensic Examiner

33. Cyrus Silva, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Deputy

34. Charles Van Buskirk, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Coroner

Case 3:12-cr-00144-EMC Document 135 Filed 01/13/15 Page 13 of 16
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

14

35. Charles Tripodi

36. Kyla Tripodi

37. Thomas Tuohy

38. Robert Auerback, Fidelity National Title Company, Custodian of Records

39. Lori Blaisdell, Wells Fargo Bank, Legal Processing Unit

40. Debbie Walker, North Valley Bank, Custodian of Records

41. Angela Butler, Serological Research Institute, Forensic Serologist

42. Adam Brendt, Serological Research Institute, Evidence Technician

43. Amy Lee, Serological Research Institute, Forensic Serologist

44. Tom Fedor, Serological Research Institute, Forensic Serologist

45. Jennifer Williams, Serological Research Institute, Forensic Serologist

46. Dr. Douglas Hatter and/or Dr. James Tate and/or Custodian of Records, Mercy

Hospital

47. US Cellular Records, Custodian of Records

48. Verizon Wireless, Custodian of Records

49. Microsoft Corporation/Hotmail, Custodian of Records

50. Yahoo! Inc., Custodian of Records

51. Shell Gift Card, Custodian of Records

B. Defendant Wilde

1. Kyla Tripodi

2. Charles “Charlie” Tripodi

3. Reuben Childs

4. Tom Tuohy

5. Daisy Wilde

6. Heather Hanko

7. Donna Fulton

8. Danica Torrez

9. Ken Estes

Case 3:12-cr-00144-EMC Document 135 Filed 01/13/15 Page 14 of 16
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

15

10. Desiree Early

11. Dale Cloutier

12. B. Berg

13. Karen Quenell

IX. DEMONSTRATIVES

The parties shall meet and confer in advance (prior to the date of demonstration) and

exchange demonstratives to avoid objections. Any objections shall be brought to the Court’s

attention before 4:00 p.m. the day prior to being exhibited.

X. JURY VOIR DIRE, JURY INSTRUCTIONS, & VERDICT FORM

A. Jury Questionnaire and Voir Dire

The Court has reviewed the parties’ jointly proposed jury questionnaire and has approved it,

subject to the Court’s modifications to be provided to the parties. The parties may wish to work

towards further shortening the questionnaire. Any suggested changes to the questionnaire shall be

submitted to the Court by January 22, 2015. The Court will issue the final form prior to January 29,

2015. The Government will be responsible for making 100 copies and delivering them to the Jury

Administrator by 4:00 p.m., January 29, 2015. The Government shall retrieve the completed

questionnaires on Monday, February 2, and promptly deliver one (1) copy set to Defendant’s

counsel and two (2) sets to the Court. The Court shall give each party a brief opportunity (e.g., 30

minutes each) to voir dire orally the potential jurors after questioning by the Court.

B. Jury Instructions

The Government filed proposed jury instructions on December 30, 2014. Docket No. 119. 

Defendant Wilde “adopts the government’s proposed jury instructions,” but seeks to reserve the

right to “request changes as the circumstances of the trial may dictate.” Docket No. 125 at 2. Given

Defendant Wilde’s concession that he has adopted the government’s instructions, the Court will not

permit Defendant Wilde to later argue against any of the Government’s proposed instructions. To

the extent Defendant Wilde wishes to request that additional or different instructions be given, any

such request must be made to the Court by formal motion filed no later than the close of Defendant’s

case.

Case 3:12-cr-00144-EMC Document 135 Filed 01/13/15 Page 15 of 16
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

16

The Court will issue a proposed set of final instructions to the parties and give the parties

sufficient time to comment on, or object to (subject to the limitation discussed above), the Court’s

proposed final instructions before the instructions are read to the jury. 

C. Verdict Form

The Court will review the proposed verdict forms and provide a final verdict form before the

close of evidence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cr-00144-EMC Document 135 Filed 01/13/15 Page 16 of 16