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

Gregory J. Kuykendall, Bar # 012508

Amy P. Knight, Bar # 031374

KUYKENDALL & ASSOCIATES

531 S Convent Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 792-8033

greg@kuykendall-law.com

amyknight@kuykendall-law.com

Attorneys for Defendant Scott Daniel Warren

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SCOTT DANIEL WARREN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No.CR-18-00223-001-TUC-RCC(DTF)

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO 

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN 

LIMINE REGARDING THE 

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 

STATES

In this highly unusual filing, the executive branch of the federal government

invoked the Federal Rules of Evidence to prevent during argument “[a]ny mention 

of the President or the current administration.” 

First, the rules of evidence do not inhibit “[a]ny mention” of a party (or the 

head of the executive branch of that party) which is seeking to convict and punish 

the other party. Nothing in the rules of evidence restricts, or even could

constitutionally restrict, the defense’s ability to characterize its case for the jury, and 

the order the government seeks would violate Dr. Warren’s rights under the First, 

Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Arguments 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 367 Filed 11/01/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

legally can and almost always do include concepts and issues that were not 

necessarily evidence in the case, including commentary on likely motivations. This 

is simply not a rules-of-evidence situation. 

Second, absent any explanation whatsoever of the prejudice it believes it 

would suffer from anyone even mentioning President Trump, the government seeks

to preclude any mention of him or his administration. Without conducting any 

factual or legal analysis of the prejudicial impact of any lawyer or witness daring to 

mention the President, a man who maintains ultimate authority over this prosecution 

(notably, the same man who appointed both the United States Attorney General and 

the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona), the government seeks this

extraordinary ban. But unless and until the government articulates the allegedly

unfair harm to its case, the motion must be denied.

Significantly, the government itself introduced the only mention of President 

Trump into the previous trial, when, while questioning Dr. Warren, it brought up an 

article he had written expressing some of his views. See RT 6/6/2019 at 134-138, 

152-156. The government cannot legitimately claim that certain views about the case 

are relevant only when the government seeks to elicit them, but irrelevant when those 

views favor the defense.

Unless the government produces some explanation for its request, the motion 

should be denied.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1st day of November, 2019.

By /s/ Amy P. Knight

Gregory J. Kuykendall

Amy P. Knight

531 S Convent Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85701

Attorneys for Defendant Scott 

Daniel Warren

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 367 Filed 11/01/19 Page 2 of 3
3

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 certify that on November 1, 2019, I electronically transmitted a PDF 

version of this document to the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System for filing 

and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF 

registrants: 

Nathaniel J. Walters, Esq. (email: Nathaniel.walters@usdoj.gov) 

Anna R. Wright, Esq. (email: anna.wright@usdoj.gov) 

United States Attorney’s Office 

405 W. Congress, Suite 4800 

Tucson, AZ 85701

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 367 Filed 11/01/19 Page 3 of 3