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

Sean C. Chapman 

Law Office of Sean C. Chapman, P.C.

100 North Stone Avenue, Suite 701

Tucson, Arizona 85701

Telephone: (520) 622-0747

Fax: (520) 628-7861

Arizona State Bar No. 012088

Attorney for Defendant 

Sean@seanchapmanlaw.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

Lonnie Ray Swartz,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 15-1723 TUC RCC (DTF)

MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE 

EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S 

ARMY SERVICE AND PERSONNEL 

RECORDS 

It is expected that excludable delay under Title 18, United States Code, § 

3161(h)(1)(F) will occur because of this motion or an order based thereon.

The Defendant, Lonny Swartz, through undersigned counsel, Sean C. Chapman 

of THE LAW OFFICE OF SEAN C. CHAPMAN, P.C., and pursuant to Rules 104, 401 

and, 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, hereby moves to preclude the Government 

from introducing the following evidence at trial: 1) evidence of Agent Swartz’s service 

and/or discharge from the United States Army; and 2) personnel records concerning

Agent Swartz’s performance while he attended the U.S. Border Patrol Academy or was 

employed by the U.S. Border Patrol. This motion is made for the following reasons.

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 272 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 4
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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. FACTS RELEVANT TO THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MOTION

The Government has disclosed documentation relating to two areas the defense 

now seeks to preclude from introduction at trial, whether documentary or testimonial: 

Agent Swartz’s service/discharge from the U.S. Army, and his personnel records while 

he was in training or employed by the U.S. Border Patrol.

A. Agent Swartz’s Army Service

Agent Swartz enlisted in the U.S. Army on November 7, 1995, when he was 19 

years of age. He was discharged on February 18, 1998. The documentation disclosed by 

the Government indicates that Swartz’s discharge was effectuated “under other than 

honorable conditions” and “in lieu of trial by court-martial.” The reason for this 

disposition was Swartz absenting himself from his military service for a lengthy period 

of time.1

B. Agent Swartz’s Personnel Records

The Government’s Disclosure includes approximately 230 pages of internal, 

personnel records pertaining to Agent Swartz’s training and subsequent employment 

with the U.S. Border Patrol.2 These records include Field Observation Reports, End of 

Phase Reports, results of various quizzes and exams, results of various proficiency tests, 

results of standardized tests, performance evaluations and summaries, counseling forms, 

 

1 Bates No. 4718-4816.

2 Bates No. 1481-1712.

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 272 Filed 01/16/18 Page 2 of 4
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

certifications, acknowledgments of various policies, health records, sensitive vital 

information pertaining to Agent Swartz and his family members, various Memoranda 

written to and from Agent Swartz, and Records of Instruction.

II. LAW

None of the records described above are relevant to any issue that the jury must 

decide in this case. The reason for and characterization of Swartz’s discharge from the 

army has no bearing on whether, on October 10, 2012, he acted with criminal intent to 

commit second degree murder. Similarly, none of the documents in Swartz’s personnel 

file make it any more or less likely that he acted with criminal intent when he 

discharged his firearm in this case. 

Fed. R. Evid. 401 defines relevant evidence as that which has “any tendency to 

make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence” and “is of 

consequence in determining the action.” Because these subject areas are irrelevant, they 

are inadmissible at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 402 (“Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.”).

/ / /

/ / /

III. CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, this Court should enter an order precluding the 

Government from introducing at trial evidence of Agent Swartz’s service and/or 

discharge from the army, or evidence from his U.S. Border Patrol personnel file.

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 272 Filed 01/16/18 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Respectfully submitted this 16th day of January, 2018.

LAW OFFICES OF SEAN CHAPMAN, P.C.

BY: /s/ Sean Chapman

Sean Chapman

Electronically mailed this 16th day of January 2018 to:

United States District Court

Wallace Kleindeinst

Mary Sue Feldmeier

United States Attorney’s Office

Serena Lara

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 272 Filed 01/16/18 Page 4 of 4