Court Opinion

ID: 9893978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 14:01:40.609533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:55.637668
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. Criminal No. 21-0626 (PLF)
DEREK COOPER GUNBY,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In anticipation of trial, defendant Derek Cooper Gunby submitted a trial brief in
which he requested that the Court limit the evidence that the government could present at trial
regarding his “anti-government” political beliefs. See Defendant Gunby’s Trial Brief Regarding
the Government’s Inappropriate Depiction of Gunby as “Anti-Government” (“Def. Trial Br.”)
[Dkt. No. 97]. Specifically, Mr. Gunby requests that “the Court take judicial notice that pro-
government views, rather than anti-government views, represent true extremism,” and that “[t]he
Court take judicial notice that anti-government ideology is the proper, and constitutionally most
sound, ideology, and that a citizen such as Gunby should not be punished for holding anti-
government assessments.” Id. at 6. The government opposes Mr. Gunby’s requests. See
Government’s Response to Defendant’s “Trial Brief” [Dkt. No. 99].

The Court agrees with Mr. Gunby that no person can or should be punished based

solely on his “abstract beliefs” or political ideology. See Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159,

167 (1992). But Mr. Gunby cites no precedent or legal authority for his other two requests — that
the Court take judicial notice that “pro-government views . . . represent true extremism” and

“anti-government ideology is . . . the most constitutionally sound.” His requests for judicial
notice are without legal basis and are denied.

Mr. Gunby also requests that the Court “[florbid and preclude the government
from making Gunby’s criticisms or suspicions of the government into criminal claims or being
admitted as evidence against Gunby.” Def. Trial Br. at 6. The Court will also deny this request.
Although Mr. Gunby may believe what he chooses to, “[t]he First Amendment . . . does not

prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or

intent.” Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 489 (1993). “Evidence of a person’s character or
character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in
accordance with the character or trait.” FED. R. EviD. 404(a)(1). The government may,
however, introduce statements made by Mr. Gunby about his beliefs and other evidence about
his political ideology if such evidence is relevant to proving an element of an offense or

establishing Mr. Gunby’s motive or intent. See Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. at 489 (citing

Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631, 642 (1947)).

In view of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that the relief requested in Defendant Gunby’s Trial Brief Regarding

the Government’s Inappropriate Depiction of Gunby as “Anti-Government” [Dkt. No. 97] is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

C2, ctw

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN ~
United States District Judge

DATE: /o | 2]23