1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

) No. 12 CR 540

v. ) 

) Chief Judge Rubén Castillo

BYRON WILSON, aka ABJ,@ and ) 

DARNELL WRIGHT, aka ACountry@ ) 

GOVERNMENT=S MOTION TO PRECLUDE IMPROPER 

CROSS-EXAMINATION

The United States of America, by and through its attorney, ZACHARY T. 

FARDON, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, hereby 

respectfully moves in limine to preclude improper cross-examination by Wilson’s 

attorney. On a number of occasions at the first trial, counsel for Wilson asked 

questions during cross-examination that were either argumentative or irrelevant. 

Although the government objected to a number of the questions and the Court 

sustained the objections, the damage was done by asking the questions and injecting 

improper issues and argument before the jury. The government moves for the 

Court to preclude these questions and similarly objectionable questioning at the trial 

set to commence on May 11, 2015.

As the Court will recall, the Court gave a jury instruction that provided: “The 

legality of any search or seizure you have heard testimony about in this case is not 

an issue for you to decide.” The defense did not object to this instruction. 

Notwithstanding this instruction, counsel for Wilson asked a number of questions 

that suggested that the search of the Monte Carlo was illegal. For example, in 

Case: 1:12-cr-00540 Document #: 197 Filed: 05/05/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1112
2

questioning Officer Martinez about the search of the Monte Carlo, counsel asked the 

following question:

Q: Did you have a warrant for that?

A: No. 

Tr. at 143-44. (An excerpt of the cross-examination of Officer Martinez is attached as 

Government Exhibit A). After Officer Martinez testified that he did not tell Officer 

Lipsey about the search of the Monte Carlo (the government has no objection that 

that question), counsel for Wilson then asked, “Just kept it a secret to yourself?” 

The government objected to that question, and the Court sustained the objection.

The first question about the warrant was asked to convey the impression that 

the search of the Monte Carlo was illegal, or at least the question leaves that 

impression. But, as set forth in the jury instruction, whether a warrant was 

necessary for that search is a legal question that that is not at issue in this trial and 

not an appropriate question for a jury in any event. As a result, that question, and 

other questions suggesting that the government did not have legal authority to 

search the Monte Carlo are irrelevant and the defense should be barred from that 

line of cross examination. 

The latter question—“Just kept it a secret to yourself?”—is an example of 

counsel for Wilson’s tendency to ask argumentative questions on cross to inject 

defense arguments to the jury, regardless of whether the question is objectionable or 

even answered by the witness. In this instance, the government objected, the Court 

sustained the objection, and the witness did not answer. But the lack of an answer 

Case: 1:12-cr-00540 Document #: 197 Filed: 05/05/15 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:1113
3

did not matter for the defense; the point was to simply make that comment in front 

of the jury regardless of whether it was objectionable. The government requests 

that the Court preclude the defense from asking this question and similarly 

argumentative questions that are asked simply to improperly inject arguments 

before the jury.

After the Court sustained the objection to the “Just kept it a secret to 

yourself?” question, the cross continued and Officer Martinez stated that he did not 

tell FBI Agent Cyrian about the search of the Monte Carlo. At the end of that line 

of questioning, counsel for Martinez asked, “You kept that to yourself [the search of 

the Monte Carlo] until you got caught?” The government objected, the Court 

sustained the objection, and the witness did not answer. But again, the point of the 

question was not to elicit an answer. It was to simply ask the question and 

improperly put the defense argument before the jury. The question was 

argumentative and the defense should be precluded from asking that question and 

similarly argumentative questions at trial.

Counsel for Wilson asked similarly argumentative questions with other 

witnesses. For example, after Officer Nguyen testified about where he saw the 

Masterpiece Arms firearm and marijuana, the following exchange occurred during 

the cross-examination: 

Q: You don’t have any explanation for why somebody would be driving 

 around with a sack of marijuana in plain view on their lap while they’re 

 operating a car do you?

AUSA: Objection, Your Honor.

Case: 1:12-cr-00540 Document #: 197 Filed: 05/05/15 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:1114
4

COURT: Sustained.

Q: But if they are driving around with a sack of marijuana in plain view on 

 their lap, that’s convenient for you to make an arrest, isn’t it?

AUSA: Objection, Your Honor.

COURT: Sustained.

Tr. at 53. (An excerpt of the cross-examination of Officer Martinez is attached as 

Government Exhibit B.) These are additional examples of questions that were 

objectionable, argumentative questions asked not for an answer but to improperly 

place defense arguments before the jury prior to closing argument. 

For the reasons set forth above, the government moves to preclude improper 

cross-examination at trial. 

Respectfully submitted,

ZACHARY T. FARDON

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Matthew F. Madden 

MATTHEW F. MADDEN

MARIBEL FERNANDEZ-HARVATH

Assistant United States Attorneys

219 South Dearborn Street, 5th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 886-2050 

Dated: May 5, 2015

Case: 1:12-cr-00540 Document #: 197 Filed: 05/05/15 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:1115
Case: 1:12-cr-00540 Document #: 197 Filed: 05/05/15 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:1116
Case: 1:12-cr-00540 Document #: 197 Filed: 05/05/15 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:1117
Case: 1:12-cr-00540 Document #: 197 Filed: 05/05/15 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:1118
Case: 1:12-cr-00540 Document #: 197 Filed: 05/05/15 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:1119
Case: 1:12-cr-00540 Document #: 197 Filed: 05/05/15 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:1120
Case: 1:12-cr-00540 Document #: 197 Filed: 05/05/15 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:1121
Case: 1:12-cr-00540 Document #: 197 Filed: 05/05/15 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:1122