UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. 

NICHOLAS DOMBEK, DAMIEN 

BOLAND, ALFRED ATSUS, and 

JOSEPH ATSUS, 

Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM 

CR. NO. 3:23-CR-149 

(JUDGE MANNION) 

Presently before the court are Defendants Damien Boland, Alfred 

Atsus, and Joseph Atsus' joint motion in limine to exclude evidence of a 

firearm recovered from Defendant Bolan d's aunt ("Joint Motion"). (Doc. 104 ). 

Regarding their motion to exclude moving Defendants argue that the firearm 

recovered from Defendant Boland's aunt's house is unrelated to the case 

and should be barred from evidence at trial as unfairly prejudicial pursuant 

to Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403. (See generally, Doc. 105). The 

government opposes this request arguing, inter alia, that the recovered 

firearm is highly probative of Defendant Boland's alleged involvement in the 

2006 burglary of the Space Farms Zoo and Museum ("Space Farms"), which 

the government anticipates establishing at trial. (See generally, Doc. 145). 

For the reasons discussed below, the court will DENY the Joint Motion. 

Case 3:23-cr-00149-MEM Document 182 Filed 11/13/24 Page 1 of 16
I. Background 

On June 6, 2023, a federal grand jury sitting in Scranton, Pennsylvania 

returned an indictment charging the Defendants with one count of 

Conspiracy to Commit Theft of Major Artwork, Concealment and Disposal of 

Major Artwork, and Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. §371 . Nicholas Dombek was further charged with eight counts 

of Concealment or Disposal of Major Artwork, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §668 

and §2, one count of Theft of Major Artwork, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §668 

and §2, and one count of Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §2314 and §2. Damien Boland was further charged 

with eight counts of Concealment or Disposal of Major Artwork, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. §668 and §2, and two counts of Theft of Major Artwork, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §668 and §2. Joseph Atsus was further charged with 

four counts of Concealment or Disposal of Major Artwork, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §668 and §2, and one count of Theft of Major Artwork, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. §668 and §2. Alfred Atsus was further charged with three counts 

of Concealment or Disposal of Major Artwork, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §668 

and §2, and one count of Theft of Major Artwork, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§668 and §2. (Doc. 1 ). 

- 2 -

Case 3:23-cr-00149-MEM Document 182 Filed 11/13/24 Page 2 of 16
In Count 1 of the indictment the government specifically alleges that 

from August 1999 to June 2019 Defendants conspired with Thomas Trotta, 

Dawn Trotta, Frank Tassiello, Ralph Parry, and Daryl Rinker to steal objects 

of cultural heritage from museums around the country. During the nearly 

twenty years the conspiracy allegedly existed the government claims that 

Defendants and other conspirators conducted research to locate collections 

containing valuable pieces of artwork, antiques, sports memorabilia, and 

other items. Defendants and other conspirators would travel to these 

collections and conduct "reconnaissance" to determine if it was worth 

stealing a given object. Once a theft was agreed upon and planned, 

members of the conspiracy, including the moving Defendants, allegedly 

would meet at pre-arranged locations, travel to the museum or other target 

of the burglary, break in, smash or destroy the protective display cases, and 

steal and remove the objects on display. After the stolen objects were taken, 

members of the conspiracy, including the Defendants, would transport them 

back to Northeastern Pennsylvania, where they would itemize, distribute, 

and break-down the stolen objects between the members of the conspiracy. 

Three locations in particular were allegedly utilized for these activities: 

the residence of Dombek, the residence of conspirator Dawn Trotta, and a 

bar owned and operated by Boland. At his residence Dombek allegedly 

- 3 -

Case 3:23-cr-00149-MEM Document 182 Filed 11/13/24 Page 3 of 16
stripped stolen items, including Yogi Berra's World Series Rings, of their 

gemstones and other valuable attachments before melting them down into 

easily transportable pieces of valuable metal. Dombek also allegedly burned 

or buried several paintings brought to his home. When he was arrested on 

related state charges Dombek went to the homes of Boland and conspirators 

Dawn Trotta and Darlyn Rinker, where he threatened them. He further is 

alleged to have attempted to buy a fatal amount of fentanyl to kill a 

government witness and had in his possession a poison plant allegedly with 

the intent to use it for the same purpose. For this Dombek was also charged 

with witness intimidation. 

When the indictment in this case was filed moving Defendants were all 

timely arraigned and released. However, Dombek fled into the woods of 

Northeastern Pennsylvania and remained at large until he surrendered on 

January 1, 2024. After a year of delays, in part caused by Dombek's flight, a 

joint trial of Dombek and moving Defendants is scheduled to begin on 

January 13, 2025. All other conspirators except Darlyn Ricker, who passed 

away on April 18, 2024, have pied guilty and are now awaiting sentence. 

Following the publicity surrounding the unsealing of the Indictment, 

Defendant Boland's aunt, Donna De La Vina, through counsel, contacted the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding a firearm Defendant Boland 

- 4 -

Case 3:23-cr-00149-MEM Document 182 Filed 11/13/24 Page 4 of 16
left at her residence years prior. De La Vina discovered the firearm in storage 

and feared that it might be stolen or have some connection to the Indictment 

in this case. Specifically, on June 28, 2006, the Space Farms Zoo and 

Museum, located in Wantage, New Jersey, was burglarized and multiple 

valuable firearms were stolen. One of the stolen firearms was a Colt Dragoon 

Revolver, allegedly the same type of gun discovered by De La Vina. Trotta 

admitted to participating in this burglary with Defendant Boland and other 

members of the conspiracy. The Government alleges that Defendant Boland 

travelled to visit his aunt in 2009 at her residence in Las Vegas, Nevada, 

following the death of her husband, where Defendant Boland remained for 

approximately a month and then left, leaving the Colt Dragoon Revolver 

behind. 

The factual allegations pertaining to this firearm are in opposition. On 

the one hand, moving Defendants allege that the authenticity, condition and 

value of the Space Farms stolen guns are unknown because they were not 

insured or appraised. On the other hand, the Government alleges, inter a/ia, 

that the owner of the Space Farms, Parker Space, personally viewed the 

Colt Revolve discovered by De La Vina and informed Government agents 

that it appears to be the Colt Dragoon revolver stolen from the museum. 

Furthermore, the Government alleges that experts have examined the 

- 5 -

Case 3:23-cr-00149-MEM Document 182 Filed 11/13/24 Page 5 of 16
firearm and one of them, Leon Castner, has opined that it was an authentic 

Colt Dragoon 6 shot Percussion Army Revolver, produced from 1851 to 

1861 , valued at $22,000, and described as "unique and very rare" given its 

fine engraving. Moving Defendants counter that it is not the same firearm 

because that particular expert documented a serial number (231195A) that 

was different from the firearm's actual serial number (15609). In response, 

the Government explains that the particular serial number moving 

Defendants allude to is merely the result of the owner's conjecture, who did 

not have records at his museum indicating the exact serial numbers for some 

of the stolen firearms, and the expert's, Leon Castner, email where by 

Castner opined that "one of the stolen ones might have been #373, Colt 

Single Action Army 45 Cal with Mexican Silver & 18K Gold Grips, S/n 

233195A." (Doc. 177, p. 5) (emphasis in original). Other than the serial 

number disagreement, moving Defendants also challenge the expert report 

provided by the Government for, among other things, depending on 

speculation. 

Against this backdrop, the Court considers the Joint Motion to decide 

whether to allow the admission of the firearm and related testimony at trial. 

- 6 -

Case 3:23-cr-00149-MEM Document 182 Filed 11/13/24 Page 6 of 16
II. Discussion 

A. Motion In Limine Guidelines 

The Court is vested with broad inherent authority to manage its cases, 

which carries with it the discretion and authority to rule on motions in limine 

prior to trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984); In re 

Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig., 723 F.2d 238, 260 (3d Cir. 1983), rev'd 

on other grounds sub nom., Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio 

Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (the court exercises its discretion to rule in limine 

on evidentiary issues "in appropriate cases"). Courts may exercise this 

discretion in order to ensure that juries are not exposed to unfairly prejudicial, 

confusing or irrelevant evidence. United States v. Romano, 849 F.2d 812, 

815 (3d Cir. 1988). Courts may also do so in order to "narrow the evidentiary 

issues for trial and to eliminate unnecessary trial interruptions." Bradley v. 

Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ., 913 F.2d 1064, 1069 (3d Cir. 1990) (citation 

omitted). However, courts should be careful before doing so. 

In considering motions in limine which call upon the Court to engage 

in preliminary evidentiary rulings under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of 

Evidence, we begin by recognizing that these "evidentiary rulings [ on 

motions in limine] are subject to the trial judge's discretion and are therefore 

reviewed only for abuse of discretion .... Additionally, application of the 

- 7 -

Case 3:23-cr-00149-MEM Document 182 Filed 11/13/24 Page 7 of 16
balancing test under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 will not be disturbed 

unless it is 'arbitrary and irrational."' Abrams v. Lightolier Inc., 50 F.3d 1204, 

1213 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see Bernardsville Bd. of Educ. v. J.H., 

42 F.3d 149, 161 (3d Cir. 1994) (reviewing in limine rulings for abuse of 

discretion). Yet, while these decisions regarding the exclusion of evidence 

rest in the sound discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed 

absent an abuse of that discretion, the exercise of that discretion is guided 

by certain basic principles. 

One of the key guiding principles is reflected in the philosophy which 

shapes the rules of evidence. The Federal Rules of Evidence can aptly be 

characterized as evidentiary rules of inclusion, which are designed to broadly 

permit factfinders to consider pertinent factual information while searching 

for the truth. The inclusionary quality of the rules, and their permissive 

attitude towards the admission of evidence, is embodied in three cardinal 

concepts. The first of these concepts is Rule 401 's definition of relevant 

evidence. Rule 401 defines what is relevant in an expansive fashion, stating, 

"relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the 

existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action 

more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. 

R. Evid. 401 . Adopting this broad view of relevance it has been held that: 

-8-

Case 3:23-cr-00149-MEM Document 182 Filed 11/13/24 Page 8 of 16
"Under [Rule] 401 , evidence is relevant if it has 'any tendency to 

make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the 

determination of the action more probable or less probable than 

it would be without the evidence.' [Therefore] '[i]t follows that 

evidence is irrelevant only when it has no tendency to prove the 

fact. Thus the rule, while giving judges great freedom to admit 

evidence, diminishes substantially their authority to exclude 

evidence as irrelevant."' 

Frank v. County of Hudson, 924 F. Supp. 620, 626 (D.N.J. 1996) (citing 

Spain v. Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439, 452 (3d Cir. 1994) (quotations omitted)). 

This quality of inclusion embraced by the Federal Rules of Evidence, 

favoring the admission of potentially probative proof in all of its forms, is 

further buttressed by Rule 402, which generally defines the admissibility of 

relevant evidence in sweeping terms, providing that, "[a]II relevant evidence 

is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United 

States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by 

the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not 

relevant is not admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. 

Thus, Rule 402 expressly provides that all "[r]elevant evidence will be 

admissible unless the rules of evidence provide to the contrary." United 

States v. Sriyuth, 98 F.3d 739, 745 (3d Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). While 

these principles favoring inclusion of evidence are subject to some 

- 9 -

Case 3:23-cr-00149-MEM Document 182 Filed 11/13/24 Page 9 of 16
reasonable limitations, even those limitations are cast in terms that clearly 

favor admission of relevant evidence over preclusion of proof in federal 

proceedings. Thus, Rule 403, which provides grounds for exclusion of some 

evidence, describes these grounds for exclusion as an exception to the 

general rule favoring admission of relevant evidence, stating that: 

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative 

value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair 

prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by 

considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless 

presentation of cumulative evidence. 

Fed. R. Evid. 403 (emphasis added). 

By permitting the exclusion of relevant evidence only when its 

probative value is "substantially outweighed" by other prejudicial factors, 

Rule 403 underscores the principle that, while evidentiary rulings rest in the 

sound discretion of the court, that discretion should consistently be exercised 

in a fashion which resolves all doubts in favor of the admission of relevant 

proof in a proceeding, unless the relevance of that proof is substantially 

outweighed by some other factors which caution against admission. 

These broad principles favoring the admission of relevant evidence 

also shape and define the scope of this Court's discretion in addressing 

motions in limine like the Joint Motion here, which seeks a pre-trial ruling 

- 10 -

Case 3:23-cr-00149-MEM Document 182 Filed 11/13/24 Page 10 of 16
excluding a firearm largely on relevance and prejudice grounds. In the past, 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has cautioned against 

such preliminary and wholesale exclusion of evidence, noting that it has 

"made clear that rulings excluding evidence on Rule 403 grounds should 

rarely be made in limine." Walden v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 126 F.3d 506, 

518 n. 10 (3d Cir. 1997). The reason for this caution is evident: oftentimes a 

court "cannot fairly ascertain the potential relevance of evidence for Rule 403 

purposes until it has a full record relevant to the putatively objectionable 

evidence." Id.; see a/so In re Diet Drugs Products Liability Litigation, 369 F.3d 

293, 314 (3d Cir. 2004). As the Court of Appeals has observed when advising 

against excessive reliance on motions in limine to exclude evidence under 

Rule 403: 

[M]otions in limine often present issues for which final decision is 

best reserved for a specific trial situation. American Home, 753 

F .2d at 324; cf Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41-42, 105 

S. Ct. 460, 463-64, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) (holding that criminal 

defendant must testify to preserve claim of improper 

impeachment with prior conviction) ("The [in limine] ruling is 

subject to change when the case unfolds, particularly if the actual 

testimony differs from what was contained in the defendant's 

proffer. Indeed even if nothing unexpected happens at trial, the 

district judge is free, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, 

to alter a previous in limine ruling."). This is particularly true when 

- 11 -

Case 3:23-cr-00149-MEM Document 182 Filed 11/13/24 Page 11 of 16
the evidence is challenged as irrelevant or prejudicial; the 

considerations weighed by the court will likely change as the trial 

progresses. See Rosenfeld v. Basquiat, 78 F.3d 84, 91 (2d Cir. 

1996) ("Unlike rulings that involve balancing potential prejudice 

against probative value, the ruling in the present case was not 

fact-bound and no real purpose other than form would have been 

served by a later objection."). We have also made clear that 

rulings excluding evidence on Rule 403 grounds should rarely be 

made in limine. "[A] court cannot fairly ascertain the potential 

relevance of evidence for Rule 403 purposes until it has a full 

record relevant to the putatively objectionable evidence. We 

believe that Rule 403 is a trial-oriented rule. Precipitous Rule 403 

determinations, before the challenging party has had an 

opportunity to develop the record, are therefore unfair and 

improper." Paoli I, 916 F.2d at 859; see also In re Paoli R.R. Yard 

PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 747 (3d Cir. 1994) ("Paoli If'). Under 

these and similar circumstances, if a district court makes a 

tentative pre-trial ruling, it has the opportunity to "reconsider [its] 

in limine ruling with the benefit of having been witness to the 

unfolding events at trial." United States v. Graves, 5 F .3d 1546, 

1552 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Walden, 126 F.3d at 518 n. 10. 

The Third Circuit has thus cautioned that "pretrial Rule 403 exclusions 

should rarely be granted .... Excluding evidence as being more prejudicial 

than probative at the pretrial stage is an extreme measure that is rarely 

- 12 -

Case 3:23-cr-00149-MEM Document 182 Filed 11/13/24 Page 12 of 16
necessary, because no harm is done by admitting it at that stage." In re Paoli 

R. Yard PCB Litig., 916 F.2d 829, 859 (3d Cir. 1990); see also Spain v. 

Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439, 453 (3d Cir. 1994) (noting that the Third Circuit's 

"cautious approach to Rule 403 exclusions at the pretrial stage .... "). 

Moreover, the Third Circuit has characterized Rule 403 as a "trial-oriented 

rule" such that "[p]recipitous Rule 403 determinations, before the challenging 

party has had an opportunity to develop the record, are ... unfair and 

improper." In re Paoli R. Yard PCB Litig., 916 F.2d at 859. 

Accordingly, these principles urge courts to exercise their broad 

discretion sparingly in this field and avoid precipitous pre-trial rulings 

excluding evidence on relevance and prejudice grounds or otherwise unduly 

curtailing the parties' presentations of their case. It is against the backdrop 

of these guiding legal tenets that this Court considers the moving 

Defendants' motion in limine. 

B. Analysis 

As previewed in the background above, the parties disagree as to 

whether the recovered firearm is the same as the firearm stolen from Space 

Farms in 2006. The parties have presented diverging factual allegations in 

support of their arguments. 

- 13 -

Case 3:23-cr-00149-MEM Document 182 Filed 11/13/24 Page 13 of 16
The crux of moving Defendants' argument is that the firearm should 

not be admitted into evidence at trial because the Government relies on 

challengeable testimony and evidence based on speculation. For example, 

moving Defendants point to a discrepancy between the serial numbers 

documented by the Government expert, Leon Castner, and the numbers 

found on the recovered firearm. Moving Defendants also argue that the 

Government's expert assumes the recovered firearm is authentic based on 

the owner's, Parker Space, opinion that it "may be the same gun stolen in 

2006." (Doc. 154, p. 2) (emphasis in original). Under these circumstances, 

moving Defendants argue that allowing testimony concerning the recovered 

firearm would be substantially more prejudicial than probative, in violation of 

F.R.E. 403. (Id. , p. 3). 

The Government responds that the identification of the recovered 

revolver as the stolen property is not based upon speculation, but strong 

circumstantial evidence, and that moving Defendants' factual allegations are 

misleading, namely that the stolen firearm in question, an 1861 Colt Dragoon 

.44 caliber 6-shot percussion revolver, had a different serial number than the 

same model revolver recovered from Defendant Boland's aunt's home in 

2023. (Doc. 177, pp. 1-2). The Government argues that moving Defendants' 

claim is "based upon misinterpretation and misunderstanding of a 2006 

- 14 -

Case 3:23-cr-00149-MEM Document 182 Filed 11/13/24 Page 14 of 16
NCIC entry made by the New Jersey State Police." (Id., p. 2). In specific, the 

serial number discrepancy originates in an email where the expert, Leon 

Castner, merely opined that the recovered firearm "might have been #373, 

Colt Single Action Army 45 Cal with Mexican Silver & 18K Gold Gripss/n#233195A." (Id. , p. 5) (emphasis in original). This email, the Government 

argues, demonstrated that the owner, Parker Space, did not know or have 

any records indicating the serial number of the stolen Dragoon Revolver, and 

due to the owner's ignorance, "Trooper Crane, trying to identify additional 

information about the stolen firearms, placed that serial number, guessed at 

by Mr. Castner, into NCIC. It is Trooper's Crane handwriting on the email 

chain, not Mr. Castner's nor Parker Space's[, the owner]." (Id.). Herein is the 

Government explanation endeavoring to clarify the serial number 

discrepancy. Furthermore, the Government asserts that it is prepared to offer 

witness testimony of the firearm's owner and alleged co-conspirator Trotta 

identifying the two firearms as the same, as well as expert testimony 

explaining the similarities between the two firearms' grip and engraving. 

The Court finds the evidence the Government is prepared to present 

at trial to be sufficiently relevant and probative to be admitted. The moving 

Defendants' argument, of whether the witnesses can definitively testify that 

the firearms are the same, goes to the weight of the evidence, not its 

- 15 -

Case 3:23-cr-00149-MEM Document 182 Filed 11/13/24 Page 15 of 16
admissibility. Now, whether such admission would create a danger of 

confusion or mislead a jury, the Court finds such danger to be relatively low. 

"[P]retrial Rule 403 exclusions should rarely be granted" and the Court will 

not do so here. In re Paoli R. Yard PCB Litig., 916 F.2d at 859. The parties 

have worked diligently to present their divergent understanding of the 

evidence and they will be provided the opportunity to do so again at trial. The 

jury will be permitted to consider all the evidence and decide for themselves 

whether the two firearms are the same. 

IV. Conclusion 

Based on the foregoing, the court will DENY moving Defendants' 

motion in limine to exclude evidence of the firearm that was recovered from 

DATE: November 12, 2024 

23-149-04 

- 16 -

Case 3:23-cr-00149-MEM Document 182 Filed 11/13/24 Page 16 of 16