Opinion ID: 199888
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion In Limine Hearing

Text: 9 Prior to trial, Taylor and Webb filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of a prior Cossia-Taylor drug transaction under Fed.R.Evid. 403 (Rule 403). The motion sought to exclude any evidence or testimony that the informant, William Cossia, had prior drug dealing activities with Albert Taylor. The motion noted that the challenged testimony was highly prejudicial, irrelevant and would mislead the jury. 2 Specifically, Taylor sought to prevent Cossia from testifying about a November 1998 incident in North Stonington, Connecticut, six months before the two charged transactions, during which Cossia and a female friend met Taylor and Webb at a truck stop and purchased crack cocaine from them. 10 The government countered that the testimony was important for several reasons: (a) to enable the jury to understand that Cossia did not contact Taylor out of the blue to set up the charged transactions; (b) to counteract the expected defense that Cossia incorrectly identified Taylor and Webb on those occasions; and (c) to establish a common scheme or plan under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) (Rule 404(b)). 11 Characterizing the motion as one raising a difficult issue, the trial court concluded that because six months elapsed between the alleged prior sale and the April 17, 1999, transaction, the connection between the two incidents was too tenuous to show a common scheme or plan under Rule 404(b). The court expressed concerns about avoiding a mini-trial on the subject of the North Stonington incident, which would open up a Pandora's Box of other issues. The court also found that the North Stonington evidence was not probative on the subject of Cossia's identification of Taylor and Webb because Cossia claimed to be able to identify the defendants on the basis of his face-to-face dealings with them on the two charged occasions. The court did, however, allow the government to establish that Cossia had met Taylor and Webb before the April 17, 1999, transaction, so long as it instructed Cossia not to explain the circumstances of their meeting. 12 The problem was that there were two sources of evidence concerning the North Stonington transaction — Cossia's testimony and a reference on the audiotape recordings (which the government was seeking to introduce) of the April 17, 1999, meeting. While the tape reference was mentioned during the motion in limine hearing, the focus of the court's order was directed to the Cossia testimony. 3 Neither the government nor defense counsel ever sought clarification from the court as to whether the court's order covered the audio taped reference to North Stonington as well as Cossia's testimony. The defendant, in particular, never objected to the North Stonington reference or sought its redaction from the tape-recorded conversation at any time. 4