ORDER

NELSON OTERO and MAXCIME

CAGAN.

Defendants.

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court on the pretrial motions of Paul J.

Fishman, United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (Jacques S. Pierre and Lisa M.

Colone. Assistant U.S. Attorneys, appearing), defendant Nelson Otero (appearing pro-se,

Lorraine Gauli-Rufo, Assistant Federal Public Defender as advisory counsel) and defendant

Maxcime Cagan (Thomas Arnbrosio. Esq. appearing): and upon consideration of the parties’

written submissions and arguments made at a hearing on March 13. 2012; and for good causesho n:

IT IS on this QY day of March, 2012,

ORDERED as follows:

I. Defendant Otero’s motion to exclude the introduction into evidence of 2 bullet proof

ests seiied from the defendants (E( F document 49) is DE’\IED
4. Defendant Otero’s motion challenging his arrest on Fourth Amendment grounds was

denied.

5. Defendant Otero’s motion to exclude the introduction into evidence of certain lottery

tickets seized from Otero’s home is (ECF document 49) GRANTED. however, theCourt the will reconsider the motion if the Government can lay a proper foundation

demonstrating that the lottery tickets at least potentially came from any of the victim

premises or were consistent with those sold at the victim premises;

6. The Government’s motion to preclude the defendants from mentioning to the Jury the

amount of prison time a defendant would face if convicted is (ECF document 45)

GRANTED;

7. The Government’s motion to preclude defendant Otero from mentioning in his

opening the fact that his rights were violated and/or he was assaulted by the police

(ECF document 35) is GRANTED. Defendant Otero is directed that he may not

mention his being assaulted by police in his opening statement. Otero cannot crossexamine any witnesses about his alleged assault by police without the prior approval

of the Court and Otero will have to establish the relevance of his police assault

allegations before being allowed to have witnes.ses testify about these allegations

during his case-in-chief.

8. The Government’s motion to preclude the defendant’s from mentioning facial

recognition technology during the trial (ECF document 45) is DENIED;

9. The Government’s motion to preclude the defendant’s from introducing at trial

certain Photo Shop altered photographs prepared by a certain law enforcement agent is (ECF document 45) GRANTED;

10. Defendant Cagan’s motion to exclude from introduction into evidence a May 6. 2010

New York Daily News article related to defendant Cagan being “wanted for

committing armed robberies in New York” ECF document 69) is GRANTED:

I I. Defendant Cagan’s motion to have the Jury instructed that its members he barred

from conducting internet research in any way related to this case is GRANTED;

12. The Government’s motion to preclude defendant Cagan from introducing into

eidence certain portions of Cagan’s videotaped post arrest statement is

CONTINUED until such time as Cagan makes a proffer as to whether Cagan intends
14. Defendant Otero’s renewed motion for dismissal based upon jurisdictional grounds

(FCF document 43) is DENIED:

15, Defendant Otero’s motion to be provided with a pen to be used at trial is GRANTED,

Si BJECT 10 TI-IF \PPROVAL ofthe U S Marshall s Office,

United States District Judge