Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cr-00693/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cr-00693-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elijah Cooper
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.

ELIJAH COOPER,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cr-00693-SI-1 

FINAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER

Dkt. Nos. 138, 141

On April 21, 2015, the Court held a final pretrial conference in the above captioned matter, 

which is set for jury trial beginning May 7, 2015. All parties were represented by counsel. The 

following matters were resolved:

1. Trial schedule: The parties expect the evidence will take 4 days to present. 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 noon and a 15 minute break at 1:45 p.m., all times approximate. The trial will 

proceed with jury selection on May 7, 2015; begin with opening statements and evidence on May 

14, 2015; and continue until completion beginning May 18, 2015.

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

alternate jurors. The government shall have 6 peremptory challenges, the defendant shall have ten 

peremptory challenges, and each side shall have 1 additional peremptory challenge for the 

alternates.

Case 3:13-cr-00693-SI Document 163 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 6
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

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

to 20 minutes in total to question the panel.

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

parties are reviewing them, and will confer with each other as necessary. The Court has requested 

counsel prepare brief substantive instructions to provide to the jury before the trial, with the other 

procedural preliminary instructions. Counsel should file these instructions no later than May 5, 

2015.

5. Trial exhibits: No later than May 6, 2015, the government shall submit its 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. Motions in limine:

Government’s No. 1: motion to admit witness identification: DENIED. In the Court’s 

July 31 order, the Court addressed Cooper’s motion to suppress a cooperating witness’

identification of him. The Court found that the government’s use of single photograph displays 

was “unnecessarily suggestive,” but deferred ruling on the motion until the record was more fully 

developed. The government now moves to introduce this evidence. The government has provided 

email exchanges between the witness and the government, but relies heavily on declarations by 

government agents detailing what was said during phone conversations with the witness, for 

which there is no record. The Court will therefore hold an evidentiary hearing at 10 a.m. on April 

29, 2015 to determine whether the witness’s identification was reliable despite the unnecessarily 

suggestive nature of the identification procedure. Whether an identification was reliable, or 

whether it bears a “substantial likelihood of misidentification,” requires the examination of several 

Case 3:13-cr-00693-SI Document 163 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

factors: (1) “the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime,” (2) “the 

witness’ degree of attention,” (3) “the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal,” 

(4) “the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation,” and (5) “the length of 

time between the crime and the confrontation.” Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200 (1972).

Government’s No. 2: motion to exclude reference to sentence or punishment:

GRANTED.

Government’s No. 3 motion to impeach defendant with prior convictions: DENIED, 

without prejudice to rulings on specific convictions should defendant choose to testify.

Government’s No. 4: motion to exclude defendant from admitting his own prior 

statements: DENIED. If the government introduces only a portion of these statements, the rule of 

completeness allows Cooper to introduce other portions of the statements if the government’s 

chosen excerpt would distort or misrepresent the statement.

Government’s No. 5: motion to preclude reference in opening statement to facts that 

Cooper does not reasonably anticipate will be supported by evidence: DENIED without 

prejudice to specific objections at time of trial. 

Government’s No. 6: motion to enforce reciprocal discovery requirements: DENIED.

Government’s No. 7: motion to preclude certain unnoticed affirmative defenses: 

DENIED without prejudice to specific objections at time of trial. 

Defendant’s No. 1: motion to exclude expert testimony of FBI CAST officer Hector 

Luna: The notice the government provided does not include a summary of Luna’s opinions or the 

bases and reasons for them as required by Rule 16(a)(1)(G). At argument, the Court ORDERED 

the government to provide Cooper with an updated notice no later than April 24, 2015. The Court 

takes under advisement the issue of whether to limit Luna’s testimony to the opinions presented in 

the government’s deficient Rule 16 notice.

Case 3:13-cr-00693-SI Document 163 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 6
4

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

Defendant’s No. 2: motion to exclude cell site data not yet disclosed: Cooper claims 

that some of the cell site data the government has produced (namely the historical cell site data) 

does not contain the GPS coordinates of the cell towers. This is of particular concern to Cooper, 

because there is no GPS data for calls made on February 5, 2013 – the date of the alleged drug 

transaction with Knight. The government contends that the historical data (or toll records) use a 

“different sector/tower numeric system” to identify cell towers, and that the government has 

already provided Cooper with a key which provides the GPS coordinates of each tower. At 

argument Cooper contended that the key the government provided was nearly impossible to use. 

The Court therefore ORDERS the parties to file the key that the government provided no later than 

April 27, 2015 so that it may assess whether it is sufficient to allow Cooper to obtain the GPS 

coordinates at issue. The motion to exclude is DEFERRED until after receipt of this further 

information.

Defendant’s No. 3: motion to exclude expert testimony of chemist Tina Chang: 

DENIED. As with any expert, Chang may only testify as to the opinions that have properly been 

disclosed pursuant to Rule 16(a)(1)(G). However, contrary to defendant’s assertion, the Court 

finds that Chang’s opinion as to the weight and purity of the substance she tested was properly 

disclosed in an attached exhibit.

Defendant’s No. 4: motion to exclude expert testimony of chemist Jason Otis: 

DENIED. However, Otis’ testimony may only encompass the opinions disclosed: namely the 

nature and weight of the substance he tested.

Defendant’s No. 5: motion to exclude expert testimony of DEA special agent David 

Mateer: GRANTED. Mateer’s testimony is essentially a primer on the cocaine industry, giving a 

rough sketch of the organizational structure of a typical cocaine dealing conspiracy. It also details 

the harvesting, transportation, and production process that takes a cocao leaf from a South 

American farm, to a drug ready for sale on American streets. Any benefit Mateer’s testimony may 

Case 3:13-cr-00693-SI Document 163 Filed 04/23/15 Page 4 of 6
5

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

confer will be outweighed by its propensity to confuse the issues, to cause undue delay, and 

improperly convey the impression that Cooper is a member of a global organized crime ring.

Defendant’s No. 6: motion to exclude expert testimony of Barry Stewart: DENIED as 

moot. The government no longer plans on calling Stewart as a witness.

Defendant’s No. 7: motion to exclude co-conspirator statements: DENIED. However, 

the government may only introduce co-conspirator statements that were disclosed in the table it 

provided to Cooper, or included in its trial brief. 

Defendant’s No. 8: motion to exclude 404(b) evidence: GRANTED; unopposed. 

Defendant’s No. 9: motion to exclude evidence regarding Henry Tobias: DENIED. An 

indictment need not name every co-conspirator in order to be sufficiently pled. See United States 

v. McCown, 711 F.2d 1441, 1450-51 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding indictment sufficient which “states ... 

the time during which the conspiracy was operative, states the purpose of the conspiracy . . . cites 

the statutes allegedly violated . . ., gives the approximate location of the conspiratorial activities ...,

and names some of the co-conspirators.”) (emphasis added). Therefore introduction of evidence 

relating to Tobias does not impinge upon Cooper’s “right to stand trial only on charges made by a 

grand jury in its indictment,” United States v. Garcia-Paz, 282 F.3d 1212, 1215 (9th Cir. 2002).

Defendant’s No. 10: motion to exclude evidence of commentary regarding gangs: 

GRANTED; unopposed. 

Defendant’s No. 11: motion to preclude evidence of law enforcement’s prior 

knowledge of, or interactions with Cooper: GRANTED, with the following exception: The 

government wishes to introduce evidence that Cooper was pulled over by police on December 19, 

2012 while driving the same white Mercedes he is alleged to have driven during the February 5, 

2013 transaction. The parties have agreed to stipulate to the fact that Cooper was driving the 

Mercedes without reference to the police. 

Defendant’s No. 12: motion to preclude hearsay and limit government to items on 

Case 3:13-cr-00693-SI Document 163 Filed 04/23/15 Page 5 of 6
6

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

exhibit list: DENIED without prejudice to specific objections at time of trial.

Defendant’s No. 13: motion to require government to inform its witnesses of the 

Court’s pretrial rulings: GRANTED in part. The government shall inform its law enforcement 

witnesses of the Court’s rulings on defendant’s motions in limine nos. 10 and 11. The government 

shall also remind their expert witnesses that they may only testify to opinions that have been 

properly disclosed. 

Defendant’s No. 14: motion to preclude government from presenting second superseding indictment to jury: GRANTED; unopposed.

Defendant’s No. 15: motion to permit Cooper to dress in civilian clothes: GRANTED; 

unopposed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2015

________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cr-00693-SI Document 163 Filed 04/23/15 Page 6 of 6