Opinion ID: 205906
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Latest Motion in Limine

Text: Shortly before the third scheduled trial, the District Court made clear that it intended to adhere to its previous decisions to exclude evidence from other robberies and to provide informal and incomplete jury instructions. The third trial was scheduled to begin October 12, 2010, on counts three (violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)) and four (violation of (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) of the superseding indictment, which related to the robbery of Galaxy Pizza. On September 28, 2010, the government filed a motion in limine to admit evidence at the third trial of the robbery of Alfred‟s (the first trial),3 and to provide jury instructions on all of the elements of the charged counts. (App. 527, 54158.) 3 The government explained in its motion that it “continue[d] to believe that evidence of all of the robberies charged in the indictment is admissible to prove any one . . . .” (App. 542 n.7.) 15 In its motion, the government proffered that the robbery of Galaxy matched in identity and plan the robbery of Alfred‟s. The Galaxy robbery occurred at 11:45 p.m. Two men, one of whom matched the description of Brunson, entered Galaxy and pointed guns. One of the guns was described as a small silver handgun. The robbers took approximately $2,000 from the cash register as well as cash and personal possessions from the employees. The two robbers forced the employees, at gunpoint, to the rear of the business‟s back storage area, and then fled the scene. Later, one employee who was present during the robbery identified Brunson in a photo spread as one of the robbers. (App. 541.) In his written response to the government‟s motion in limine, Brunson argued that “the government is seeking to „back door‟ the [c]ourt‟s previous decisions granting defendant‟s motion to sever the multiple [c]ount [i]ndictment and denying the admission of Rule 404(b) [e]vidence; attempting to circumvent defendant‟s constitutional right to a fair trial.” (App. 562-63.) Brunson did not contest the government‟s request for the District Court to instruct the jury on all elements of the charged offenses. (App. 562-64.) The District Court summarily denied the government‟s motion in limine in a two-page order issued on October 7, 2010. The District Court did not explain its reasoning in an opinion. Rather, the District Court edited by hand the government‟s proposed order – striking through certain words and inserting others – before signing and filing it. The order provided that, “[a]t trial of Counts 3 and 4 in the indictment, the Court will advise and instruct the jury regarding each of the disputed elements of the charged offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).” (App. 6.) (emphasis added). The order 16 further stated “that the government will not be permitted to present evidence regarding the April 19, 2007, robbery of Alfred‟s” because “proof regarding that robbery is not relevant to establish the identity of the defendant as a participant in the offenses on trial, and to prove his use and carrying of a gun in those offenses, and any prejudicial impact does substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.” (App. 6.) On October 8, 2010, the government filed a notice of appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus. (App. 3-4.) Counsel for Brunson supports the granting of the petition for writ of mandamus.