1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

:

: CRIMINAL NO. 04-506-2

KEVIN JENKINS : 

GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION IN LIMINE

The United States of America, by its attorneys, Patrick L. Meehan, United States

Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Jennifer J. Chun, Assistant United States

Attorney, hereby submits its opposition to defendant Kevin Jenkins’ Motion In Limine on the

following grounds:

I. BACKGROUND

On May 10, 2006, a jury convicted defendant Kevin Jenkins of conspiracy to commit

armed bank robbery (Count One), conspiracy to commit carjacking (Count Four), and using a firearm

in furtherance of crime of violence (Counts Three and Seven). The Court granted the government’s

request for a new trial on Counts One and Three, the conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery and

related gun charge. 

II. DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE SHOULD BE DENIED.

Defendant Jenkins moves to preclude the government from offering the following

evidence: (1) defendant’s statements; (2) carjacking the minivan from the Robinson’s home; (3)

404(b) evidence; and (4) events that took place inside the Robinson’s home. Defendant’s motion

is meritless and should be denied.
2

The government is not offering extrinsic 404(b) evidence of other bad acts. The facts

surrounding the carjacking are intrinsic evidence used to prove the conspiracy to commit armed bank

robbery. These facts are alleged as overt acts in the conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery

charge, Count One. The Third Circuit clearly finds that Rule 404(b) does not extend to evidence of

acts which are ‘intrinsic’ to the charged offense. United States v. Cross, 308 F.3d 308, 320 (3d Cir.

2002). It holds that acts are intrinsic when they directly prove the charged conspiracy. Id. Here,

stealing the minivan directly proves the conspiracy because the minivan was a necessary component

to committing the armed bank robbery. Thus, the fact that the minivan was stolen from the

Robinson’s home is intrinsic evidence and admissible.

Defendant admitted that co-conspirator Eric Humbert went into the Robinson’s home

with him to steal the minivan while Rasheen Jones waited outside. Defendant admitted that he and

Humbert had guns. DNA evidence directly proves that Jenkins and Humbert were inside the

Robinson’s house to steal the minivan. Defendant admitted how he and his co-conspirators traveled

to Salem County and where he parked his car. He also admitted his telephone number. Jenkins’

statements verify important details of the conspiracy, namely the identity of his co-conspirators, that

guns were going to be used during the commission of the armed bank robbery, and corroborating

details of the getaway. Defendant’s admissions and the DNA are intrinsic evidence to prove the

conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery and are admissible. 

Finally, defendant Jenkins argues that what happened inside the Robinson’s home

should be precluded. The government agrees that the sexual assault on Mrs. Robinson is

unnecessary to prove the conspiracy of the armed bank robbery. The government only intends to

admit evidence relating to the facts surrounding the minivan and that defendant and his co-
3

conspirator Humbert had guns. The government does not intend to show photographs of the master

bedroom where the attack took place nor admit the physical evidence from the bedroom. The

government expects that defendant will stipulate that Humbert’s DNA was recovered from the

house, thereby eliminating any reference to a sexual assault. Moreover, Mrs. Robinson will be

instructed not to reference the sexual assault on direct examination. 

Evidence surrounding how and why defendant and his co-conspirators stole the

Robinson’s minivan is intrinsic evidence and therefore, admissible to prove the conspiracy to

commit armed bank robbery. 

III. CONCLUSION

For all of the reasons stated above, the United States respectfully requests that the

defendant’s motion in limine is denied.

Respectfully submitted,

PATRICK L. MEEHAN

United States Attorney

 

JENNIFER J. CHUN

Assistant United States Attorney

Date: 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this day I caused a copy of the government's Response to the Defendant’s

Motion In Limine, to be served by first-class mail and electronic filing to:

 Peter A. Levin, Esq.

1927 Hamilton Street

Philadelphia, PA 19130 

 

 ________________________________

 Jennifer J. Chun 

Assistant United States Attorney

Date April 10, 2007