Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Laredo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 21, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARICELA LAREDO, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Leo S. Papas U.S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE (DOC. ## 29, 30, 31, 32)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. United States' Motion in Limine To Exclude Witnesses During Trial With the Exception of the United States' Case Agents (Doc. # 30)

Motion is GRANTED. All witnesses shall be excluded from the courtroom during trial other than the ICE Officer in charge of the investigation, identified by the United States as "the case agent."

2. United States' Renewed Motion for Reciprocal Discovery (Doc. # 32)

Motion is DENIED. There is no evidence before the Court of Defendant's request for disclosure by the United States pursuant to Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(a)(1)(F) or (G). The only disclosure acknowledged by both the United States and Defendant is a series of correspondence, including a September 9, 2008 letter from Defendant's counsel to AUSA Stingley, which is directed to Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(a)(1)(A) and (E) and does not touch upon the subjects described in Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(a)(1)(F) or (G).

3. United States' Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony (Doc. # 31)

Motion is GRANTED in part and RESERVED in part. For the same reasons regarding #2 above, the Court DENIES the Motion. As to the second part of the Motion(opportunity pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703 and 705, to examine any permitted expert witness), the Court defers a ruling on that issue until Defendant's presentation, if any. If Defendant presents evidence and expert testimony is proffered, the United States may renew its Motion.

4. Defendant's Motion in Limine to Dismiss The Information or Require The Government to File a Bill of Particulars (Doc. # 29) Motion is DENIED.

Defendant failed to timely file the Motion. Even if Defendant had timely filed the Motion, it would have been denied because the Information is sufficient. Further, the other disclosures made by the United States supplement the essential facts in the Information and provide, in the aggregate, sufficient detail with which a defense to the charges may be prepared.

20090121

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.