United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
ORDER AND OPINION
E. Shadid United States District Judge
before the Court is Defendant Haywood's Combined Motion
(Doc. 571) for Relief from Pretrial Orders, or in the
Alternative, Motion to Continue Trial Setting and Motion in
Limine. Defendant Haywood raises numerous issues in his
Motion. The Court will address each issue in the order
presented in Defendant's Motion.
Objections to Motions in Limine Procedure
Haywood argues that the Court's Proceedings at Trial
Order (Doc. 507, as amended, Doc. 552)-requiring all
evidentiary issues that reasonably should be raised prior to
trial to be presented to the Court in a motion in limine-is
unfairly prejudicial to the defense given the large amount of
evidence the United States may seek to admit at trial. He
thus asks for relief “from the orders requiring all
evidentiary objections to be raised in motions in
limine.…” Doc. 571, at 3.
Haywood's concerns in this regard are well-taken, and the
Court will therefore elucidate further upon paragraph 2 of
the Court's Proceedings at Trial Order. The Court does
not intend at the October 9, 2019 hearing to address
definitively every evidentiary issue that may plausibly
develop during the course of this trial. The purpose of
paragraph 2 of the Proceedings at Trial Order was to require
the parties to raise evidentiary issues in motions in limine
that they reasonably should know will come up at
trail. As Defendant Haywood notes, the Court did not attempt
to define “reasonably.” The Court believes that
all counsel in this case are competent professionals capable
of predicting the major evidentiary concerns likely to arise
during the course of the trial. The Court is also cognizant
of the fact that not all evidentiary issues are capable of
identification by counsel pretrial or susceptible to
resolution by the presiding judge prior to trial.
Defendant's Motion is granted in this respect to the
extent that the Court will not prohibit objections at trial
that would not have been reasonably raised by counsel in
motions in limine. However, the Court cautions the parties
that this Order should not be construed as an invitation to
postpone raising issues for a later date that can reasonably
be addressed at this time.
Defendant's Motions in Limine
Structure of Witness Testimony
Defendant Haywood moves in limine for an order permitting him
to conduct Defendant's own direct examination of certain
Government witnesses immediately after the United States
concludes its direct examination. Doc. 571, at 4. Generally
speaking, this request makes sense in terms of efficiency.
However, given the nature of this case and the need for
parties to present testimony and evidence in a manner that
does not cause confusion, the Court will reserve ruling on
this request and decide the issue once the United States has
concluded its direct examination of the witness.
Out of Court Photo Identifications
Haywood also moves in limine to prohibit the introduction of
out of court photo identifications unless the witnesses are
present to testify at trial. Id. at 4-5. He
represents that the United States intends to present the
identifying witnesses at trial, but if it cannot, it will
attempt to introduce the out of court identifications through
other means, such as through hearsay testimony of law
enforcement officers. He requests a pretrial ruling
prohibiting the United States from referencing out of court
identifications in opening statements and until it is
determined the witness will be available to testify. The
Court will address this issue at the Final Pretrial
Conference after hearing arguments from the parties.
Haywood next raises an issue with the United States'
intended introduction of a video recording alleged to contain
footage of Haywood's nonverbal conduct while in an
interrogation room; namely, Haywood's purported rubbing
and wiping of his hands prior to submitting to a gunshot
residue swab. Defendant asserts that other nonverbal conduct
exhibited by Haywood in the video, i.e., grooming and
cleaning himself, his clothing, and his shoes-is necessary to
properly place the nonverbal conduct in context. Doc. 571, at
5. He thus requests an order directing the United States to
show all such conduct, or none, and to not lift the
‘hand rubbing” out of context.
request is denied. He will have the opportunity to place the
nonverbal conduct depicted in the video in context during
cross examination or in his case in chief.
Motion in Limine to Prohibit ...