UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20418 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

GEORGE HOWARD MANDOKA, 

 

Defendant. 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE JAIL RECORDING 

I. 

On July 8, 2015 an indictment charged Defendant George Howard Mandoka with the 

following five counts: (1) aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c), 1151 

and 1153; (2) Sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2242(2), 1151 and 1153; (3) Sexual 

abuse of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2243(a), 1151 and 2252; (4) Abusive sexual 

contact in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a)(5), 1151, and 1153; and (5) Abusive sexual contact 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a)(2), 1151 and 1153. All counts arose from Mandoka’s 

conduct with a single victim, B.J. 

A detention hearing was held on July 14, 2015. During that hearing, the Government 

noted that the charges against Mandoka created a presumption in favor of detention. The 

Government then argued that Mandoka presented a continuing danger to the public. In support 

of that argument, the Government noted that Mandoka was charged with assaulting a minorvictim countless times over a period of approximately seven years, beginning when the victim 

was 10 years old and Mandoka was 30 years old. The Government also noted that Mandoka had 

1:15-cr-20418-TLL-PTM Doc # 23 Filed 01/06/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 83
-2- 

four prior convictions for other crimes involving violence. Finally, the Government claimed that 

Mandoka had sexually assaulted other victims, including an unnamed child from 1988 to 1992, 

over a four year time span. The Government alleged that a superseding indictment for that 

conduct was forthcoming. Ultimately the Court agreed with the Government and concluded that 

Mandoka had not rebutted the presumption in favor of detention. The Court therefore found that 

Mandoka should be detained pending trial. 

Following the detention hearing, Mandoka placed a phone call from the jail. During that 

call, Mandoka allegedly stated the following: 

“All that other shit that they were talking about in there, that they were reading, 

that was Jackie and Aaron. Remember that shit that happened on the Fourth of 

July, like a long time ago? Lisa, I went to jail that night.” 

This conversation was recorded by the jail. 

Subsequently, on July 22, 2015 a superseding indictment was issued charging Mandoka 

with a sixth count of sexual abuse against a different victim, J.G., in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 

2242(2), 1151 and 1153. 

II. 

 On November 9, 2015 Mandoka filed the present motion to exclude the jail phone 

recording under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, a Court 

may exclude otherwise admissible evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by 

a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” FED. R. EVID. 403. “The admission or exclusion of evidence 

under Rule 403 is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” United States v. Reynolds, 762 

F.2d 489, 494 (6th Cir. 1985). The Government argues that Mandoka’s statement should be 

admitted because it is highly probative of his guilt. Mandoka argues that the statement is not 

1:15-cr-20418-TLL-PTM Doc # 23 Filed 01/06/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 84
-3- 

probative of his guilt, but instead shows only that he was aware of the prior accusations made 

against him. 

 Defendant Mandoka is correct. The evidence, without more, does not establish that 

Mandoka’s statement was based upon his personal knowledge of either the accusations against 

him or the events underlying those accusations. See Fed. R. Evid. 602 (“A witness may testify to 

a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has 

personal knowledge of the matter.”). Instead, the statement establishes only that Mandoka knew 

of accusations against him and that he went to jail on a previous Fourth of July. The jail 

recording thus has limited relevance and reliability, and, as such, the probative value of the jail 

recording is small. On the other hand, the danger of unfair prejudice is significant as a jury could 

easily misconstrue the statement as an admission of guilt. Because the danger of unfair prejudice 

substantially outweighs any probative value of the recording, Mandoka’s motion to exclude will 

be granted and the July 14, 2015 jail recording will be excluded. 

III. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant Mandoka’s motion to exclude jail phone 

recordings, ECF No. 15, is GRANTED. 

 It is further ORDERED that the July 14, 2015 jail phone recording is EXCLUDED. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: January 6, 2016 

1:15-cr-20418-TLL-PTM Doc # 23 Filed 01/06/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 85
-4- 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on January 6, 2016. 

 s/Michael A. Sian 

 MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager 

1:15-cr-20418-TLL-PTM Doc # 23 Filed 01/06/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 86