United States District Court, D. New Mexico
ORDER ON STATUS CONFERENCE of FEBRUARY 8,
MATTER came on for consideration of a status conference held
to address all pending motions. Counsel were notified and
given the opportunity to present any additional evidence or
argument about the proposed testimony of SANE Nurse Susan
Eldred. ECF No. 176. Upon consideration thereof:
court will reserve ruling on the following motions until the
trial (given proper objection) and will now terminate these
motions. Counsel are reminded of the importance of timely
objections and offers of proof at trial. Fed.R.Evid. 103(a):
Defendant Melvin Russell's First Motion In
Limine to Exclude Testimony of SANE Nurse Examiner Susan
Eldred filed December 12, 2016. ECF No. 107.
Defendant Melvin Russell's Second Motion In
Limine to Exclude Testimony of Susan Eldred, and/or, in
the Alternative, for a Daubert Hearing Concerning
the Same filed December 12, 2016. ECF No. 109.
Defendant's Motion to Strike Notice of Intent to
Introduce Prior Sexual Assault Evidence Pursuant to Federal
Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 413 (Doc. 68) and to Exclude
Prior Bad Acts Evidence filed June 14, 2017. ECF No. 146.
Defendant's Motion for More Definite Statement of
Proposed Other Acts Evidence filed December 12, 2016. ECF No.
106. The court is inclined to deny this motion, but will
Grant in Part and Reserve in Part.
court grants in part and reserves in part on the following
motion and will terminate it:
United States's Motion In Limine filed May 13,
2016. ECF No. 66. The court grants the government's
motion to prohibit mention before the jury of pretrial
rulings (Item No. 2 at 2-3) and plea negotiations (Item No. 3
at 3). Counsel should inform any potential witnesses of such
a prohibition if there is a likelihood that such matters
might be mentioned. In all other respects, the motion is
reserved for trial given proper objection.
following motion is denied and this constitutes a final
ruling on the issue.
Defendant Melvin Russell's Motion to Preserve Right to
Jury Trial filed December 12, 2016. ECF No. 105. Mr.
Russell's motion proposes changes to various pattern jury
instructions that would instruct the jury on its power to
nullify and inform the jury of sentencing ramifications that
would follow a guilty verdict. This is not supported by
existing law. See United States v. Rith, 164 F.3d
1323, 1338 (10th Cir. 1999) (“To the extent the
defendant . . . seeks to require courts to facilitate jury
nullification, the law is clear: a criminal defendant is not
entitled to have the jury instructed that it can, despite
finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,
disregard the law.”); see also Shannon v. United
States, 512 U.S. 573, 579 (1994) (“It is well
established that when a jury has no sentencing function, it
should be admonished to ‘reach its verdict without
regard to what sentence might be imposed.'”
(footnote omitted) (quoting Rogers v. United States,
422 U.S. 35, 40 (1975))).
D.Deny as ...