1 

72451636.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Edward F. Novak (#006092) 

enovak@polsinelli.com 

Melissa Ho (#023269) 

mho@polsinelli.com 

Jonathan G. Brinson (#025045) 

jbrinson@polsinelli.com 

Andrew T. Fox (#034581) 

afox@polsinelli.com 

POLSINELLI PC 

CityScape 

One East Washington Street, Suite 1200 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

Phone: (602) 650-2000 │ Fax: (602) 264-7033 

Attorneys for Defendants State of Arizona, Silbert,

Kalkowski, Milstead, Hunter, Heape, Pinnow, and Falcone 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Leslie A Merritt, Jr., a single man, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

State of Arizona, a body politic; Bill 

Montgomery, the elected Maricopa 

County Attorney, in his official and 

individual capacities; Maricopa County, 

a body politic; Heston Silbert, in his 

individual capacity; Christopher 

Kalkowski, in his individual capacity; 

Frank Milstead, in his individual 

capacity; Ken Hunter, in his individual 

capacity; Kelly M. Heape, in his 

individual capacity; Jennifer Pinnow, in 

her individual capacity, Anthony 

Falcone, in his individual capacity; 

Edward Leiter, in his individual 

capacity; Vanessa Losicco, in her 

individual capacity. 

Defendants. 

Case No. CV17-4540-PHX-DGC 

DEFENDANT STATE OF ARIZONA’S 

MOTION IN LIMINE (SEVENTH) RE: 

AARON SAUCEDO 
2 

72451636.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Defendant moves to preclude Plaintiff from arguing or introducing evidence about 

Aaron Saucedo’s criminal history (or as commonly referred to in the media, the “Maryvale 

Serial Shooter”), including that he was arrested and charged with a number of shootings and 

murders. In summer 2017, nearly two years after the events at issue in this case, Saucedo 

was charged with eight counts of first-degree murder, six counts of committing a drive-by 

shooting, two counts of attempted first-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, 

and one count each of endangerment and discharging a firearm at a structure.1 Saucedo’s 

identity and criminal background are not relevant to the issues in this case, and its 

introduction would be unduly prejudicial, confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. 

Accordingly, the Court should preclude its introduction under both Rule 401 and 403. 

 Merritt’s only remaining claims in this action – for false arrest and imprisonment, 

including aiding and abetting for those claims – are defined “as the detention of a person 

without his consent and without lawful authority.” Slade v. City of Phx., 541 P.2d 550, 552 

(Ariz. 1975). If probable cause existed at the time of Merritt’s arrest, it was made with 

lawful authority. In determining whether probable cause to arrest exists, courts must 

consider whether “the facts available to the officers at the moment of the arrest would 

‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that an offense has been committed.” 

Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 (1964) (citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also Reams v. 

City of Tucson, 701 P.2d 598, 601 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985) (“the critical inquiry is to the facts 

as they existed at the time of the arrest, and not afterward”) (emphasis added). 

 Despite the narrow issue remaining in this case, it appears that Plaintiff intends to 

introduce evidence about Saucedo and his extensive criminal record (nearly all of which 

post-dates the events relevant in this case) as a suspect DPS should have further 

 

1

See Megan Cassidy, Aaron Saucedo Officially Charged in ‘Serial Street Shooter’ 

Murders, The Republic (June 30, 2017), 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-breaking/2017/06/30/aaron-saucedoofficially-charged-serial-street-shooter murders/443027001/. 
3 

72451636.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

investigated.2 There is no evidence that DPS officers knew of Saucedo’s criminal behavior. 

Indeed, all but one of the shootings Saucedo was eventually charged with took place in 

2016, post-dating the events at issue in this case. Nor is there evidence that in August and 

September 2015 Saucedo was a suspect for the single shooting that occurred in the relevant 

period. As such, the parties should be limited to introducing evidence known to the officers 

at the time. There is no evidence that investigating officers knew anything about Aaron 

Saucedo at the time of Merritt’s arrest, other than this was the name of one of 10 individuals 

that had pawned a Hi-Point C9 firearm around the time of these shootings. Any mention 

beyond this is irrelevant because the critical inquiry in this case concerns the facts as they 

existed at the time of the arrest, and not afterward.

 Moreover, Saucedo’s identity and criminal history is merely offered as a red herring, 

in an effort to confuse the issues and mislead the jury. For example, in 2017, Saucedo was 

charged with the August 2015 murder of Raul Romero, a friend of Saucedo’s mother. The 

Romero murder is the only Saucedo shooting that involved a Hi-Point 9mm gun. There is 

no evidence that officers knew of this fact as of September 18, 2015, when Merritt was 

arrested. Accordingly, its introduction would be done to confuse the jury. Moreover, 

Saucedo’s fame as the Maryvale Serial Shooter makes this evidence highly prejudicial and 

its introduction could prompt the jury to find Defendant liable on a basis unrelated to the 

actual claims at issue.3 

 Accordingly, the State requests the following order: The Parties are precluded from 

arguing or introducing evidence about Aaron Saucedo, including that he was arrested and 

 

2 Plaintiff’s preliminary exhibit list includes what purports to be Aaron Saucedo’s pawn 

records. Plaintiff’s counsel also questioned DPS Officer Tony Mapp about Saucedo. 

Notably, Mapp stated that he was unable to discuss the issue further because he knew 

“nothing” about it. Excerpt of Deposition Transcript for Tony Mapp, attached as Exhibit 

A. 

3 Adding to the confusion, is that Saucedo’s surname is substantially the same as Merritt’s 

then-fiancée Eddina Sauceda.
4 

72451636.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

charged with a number of shootings and murders subsequent to the events at issue in this 

case.

4

 

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 27th day of February, 2020. 

POLSINELLI PC 

By: /s/ Jonathan G. Brinson 

Edward F. Novak 

Melissa Ho 

Jonathan G. Brinson 

Andrew T. Fox 

One E. Washington Street, Suite 1200 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

Attorneys for Defendant State of Arizona 

 

4 The State has complied with LRCiv. 7.2(l), and certifies that it had a meet and confer in an 

effort to resolve the disputed evidentiary issue.
5 

72451636.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on this 27th day of February, 2020, I electronically transmitted 

the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: 

Clerk of the Court 

United States District Court, District of Arizona 

Sandra Day O’Connor Courthouse 

401 W. Washington Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85003 

Jason D. Lamm 

Law Office of Jason Lamm 

2501 N. Seventh Street 

Phoenix, Arizona 85006 

jlamm@cyberlawaz.com 

 By: /s/ Erika Cano