CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the Government’s motions in limine

and DENIES Defendant Kapp’s motion in limine. It is so ordered.

ENTER: Bhrach nt Wernes

BLANCHE M. MANNING
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

pate; 2/7 - 23


leopards and therefore not protected under the ESA. The Government contends that its expert
witness will testify that the mounted animals taken from Kapp’s home were pure bred tigers and.
leopards. In testifying, the Government’s expert will use the stuffed animals as demonstrative
exhibits to help the jury understand why and how he has reached his conclusions. The Court thus
finds that the mounted animals are certainly relevant in that they will assist the jury in
understanding the evidence, including the testimony of the Government’s expert witness.
Additionally, the mounted animals are not so prejudicial that they will result in the jury deciding
this case on emotion rather than the facts. Consequently, the Court finds that the admission of
the mounted animals is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and thus

not precluded by Rule 403.


Minute Order Forma (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Ilinois

Name of Assigned J i Sitting Judge if Otber
ame Noga sea Blanche M. Manning iting penned Suis
CASE NUMBER 02 CR 418 DATE March 19,2003
CASE United States of America v. Kapp
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the

nature of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

() o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

Q) Oo Brief in support of motion due

(3) o Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due.

(4) o Ruling/Hearingon eset for saat

(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——set for at

(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——s set for at_

(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on_____att

(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__at

(9) Q This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
O FRCP4(m) CO General Rule 21 OO FRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) © [Other docket entry] For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the Court GRANTS the

Government’s motions in limine and DENIES Defendant Kapp’s motion in limine. It is so ordered.

(11) | [For further detail see order on the reverse side of the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court,
No notices required.

v | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.
Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. os cae “
; sk hy Od SHH ou
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
oT 03-0374
courtroom
RTS deputy’s
initials
Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office mailing depury initials



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES of AMERICA )
) Hon. Blanche M. Manning

ve )

) 02 CR 418-1

WILLIAM R. KAPP ) DO CHETED
) MAR 2 9 2093

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The Government indicted Defendant William R. Kapp for violating the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531, et seq.) (“the ESA”) and the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 3371, et
seq.) and for conspiring to violate these acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, for allegedly
engaging in the slaughter and interstate sale of endangered wildlife, specifically tigers and
leopards. The present matter comes before this Court on the parties’ motions in limine.

IL Government’s Motions in Limine

The Government filed the following pretrial motions in limine: (1) to preclude evidence
or argument intended to elicit jury nullification, including evidence: (a) that tigers and leopards
are unworthy of protection under the ESA, (b) that the conduct by Kapp in this case was
permissible, (c) of the potential penalties, and (d) of “outrageous Government conduct”; (2) to
admit “other acts evidence,” including evidence of other “non-cat” endangered species which
were found stuffed and mounted in Kapp’s home; (3) to preclude reference to the suicide of a
local taxidermist in 1999; (4) to preclude reference to Kapp’s disability; (5) to preclude drug use
and prior arrests of the Government’s witnesses without notice to the Government; and (6) to
preclude Kapp from defining reasonable doubt. On the morning of the trial, because Kapp did

not contest any of the above motions, this Court GRANTED the Government’s motions in

[o7


limine.
il. Kapp’s Motion in Limine

Kapp has moved this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403, to exclude the
Government from using the mounted tigers and leopards seized from Kapp. “Relevant evidence”
is defined as 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 have
been without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Thus, by definition, evidence that is relevant will
“prejudice” one side or the other. Rule 403 bars the admission of relevant evidence only where
its probative value is “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of
the issues, or misleading the jury.” Fed. R. Evid. 403 (emphasis added). See also United States
v. Lightfoot, Jr., 224 F.3d 586, 588 (7th Cir. 2000) (even relevant evidence may be excluded if
prejudicial effect outweighs benefit jury would obtain from considering it, but balancing is
“quintessential job for trial judge” who is in best position to weigh evidence). The comments
explain that, as used in Rule 403, “unfair prejudice” means “an undue tendency to suggest
decision on a improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.” Advisory
Committee Notes, Fed. R. Evid. 403.

Applying the above principles, courts have permitted the use of autopsy photographs to
help the jury understand a doctor’s testimony, United States v. Davidson, 122 F.3d 531, 538 (8th
Cir. 1997), and the use of photographs in the first World Trade Center bombing to help the jury
understand the medical examiner’s testimony.

Here, the Government intends to use the mounted animals to: (1) show Kapp’s purpose in

killing the animals; and (2) rebut Kapp’s defense that the animals were not pure bred tigers or