Opinion ID: 398313
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Relevancy of the Items Seized to the Crime of Aiding and Abetting

Text: 80 The district court concluded that the items seized in the search of Barnett's residence should be suppressed because they were neither contraband, evidence of criminal activity, or connected with criminal activity. As noted above, it is our view that the items seized would be admissible at trial as proof of knowledge, criminal intent, and identity. Under Warden v. Hayden, and Andresen v. Maryland, such evidence was properly seized because it will aid the government in proving the crime charged against Barnett. 81 ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE THAT BARNETT DID ADVERTISE IN CERTAIN MAGAZINES 82 The district court ruled, in response to the government's motion in limine, that the government would be permitted to introduce evidence which identified the magazines in which Barnett placed advertisements, but could not offer proof as to those magazines in which he did not place advertisements. The court concluded that the first amendment compelled this result. No authority was cited for this proposition. As discussed above, the first amendment does not compel the exclusion of evidence simply because it consists of speech. If a defendant's words or his silence are relevant to prove some issue in the case, they are admissible subject to the rules of evidence and the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court erred in ruling that the prosecution could not introduce evidence that Barnett did not advertise in certain magazines on first amendment grounds. We express no opinion as to whether such evidence has any probative value. That decision must be made by the trial court in the context of the issues presented at trial and the foundational facts presented by the government.