Opinion ID: 147526
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Evidence concerning the Murders

Text: Before the trial, the government filed a motion in limine seeking to introduce statements concerning the double homicide. Counsel for defendants opposed the request and suggested that the court instead inform the jury that Burke was charged with a “serious felony offense.” As counsel for 10 United States v. Brooks Nos. 08-5875/5948 Brooks put it in his response to the motion in limine, “The jury doesn’t need to know that Burke was being investigated for murder, only that he was a suspect in a criminal investigation and that defendants were being interviewed in connection with that investigation.” The district court thought otherwise and said as much at a March 25, 2008 pretrial conference: I’m going to allow you to say what the nature of the . . . investigation was . . . because . . . I don’t think that the . . prejudice outweighs its probative value. I think it has probative value in regard to materiality and the timing of the accountability and the accountability of the sergeant’s time. I think it’s important. On appeal, defendants challenge the relevance of these statements and, in the alternative, argue that the potential for prejudice outweighed their probative value. Fed. R. Evid. 403. We review evidentiary decisions for an abuse of discretion. General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1997). “Our review of a Rule 403 ruling is limited in that we must look at the evidence in ‘the light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.’” United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 567 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Zipkin, 729 F.2d 384, 389 (6th Cir. 1984)). Moreover, “[a]buse of discretion is defined as a definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Carter, 463 F.3d 526, 528 (6th Cir. 2006). We affirm the district court on this issue. Our review of the trial transcript reveals no attempt by the prosecution to make improper use of the admittedly grave underlying criminal charges. Rather, the prosecutor told the jury the following during his opening statement: [T]his case is not . . . as to whether Sergeant Burke is guilty or innocent. That’s not a decision that will be made in this courthouse this week. 11 United States v. Brooks Nos. 08-5875/5948 He enjoys the presumption of innocence, as do Ms. Lovelace and Ms. Brooks. . . . This understated opening statement with respect to the fact that defendants lied to agents who were investigating a murder characterized the prosecution’s low-key approach throughout the trial. We hold that the testimony related to the murders was not overly prejudicial and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it permitted its introduction.