Free Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2097

Filed 12/28/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Criminal Case No. 1:00-cr-00531-WYD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM CONCEPCION SABLAN, Defendant. WILLIAM SABLAN'S RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE PROPORTIONALITY EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS William Sablan, through undersigned court-appointed counsel, submits this response to the Government's Motion in Limine to Preclude Proportionality Evidence and Arguments [Docket #2076]: 1. The defendant suggests that this motion be deferred until the conclusion of the Guilt-Innocence trial. The defense has not decided what proportionality arguments, if any, it may want to make in the Penalty Phase. This is particularly true because the Court has not ruled on the Phase III Motions ­ and the scope of the Penalty Phase has yet to be determined. Moreover, this Motion does not make it clear exactly what the government is attempting to prohibit. 2. The government correctly notes that a sentencing jury may consider evidence of whether "[a]nother defendant or defendants, equally

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2097

Filed 12/28/2006

Page 2 of 4

culpable in the crime, will not be punished by death," 18 U.S.C. §3592(a)(4). 3. As stated throughout the Phase III Motions, the concept of mitigation is extremely broad. As a general concept, a sentencing jury should not be prohibited from hearing or receiving any relevant evidence. 4. However, the scope of appropriate proportionality evidence would be better discussed at the conclusion of the Guilt-Innocence trial. Only then will the defense know what proportionality evidence it may seek to introduce and only then would the Court be in a position to determine what proportionality evidence would be appropriate. 5. The government raises the concern that the introduction of proportionality evidence would lead to mini-trials. This is rather surprising, in view of the government's broad proffers relating to William Sablan's prior convictions. In any event, as demonstrated by William Sablan's Phase III Motions, the defense has no desire to engage in mini-trials during the Penalty Phase. Wherefore, the defense submits this Response to the Government's Motion in Limine to Preclude Proportionality Evidence and Arguments. Dated: December 28, 2006 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Patrick J. Burke Patrick J. Burke Patrick J. Burke, P.C. 1660 Wynkoop Street, Ste 810

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2097

Filed 12/28/2006

Page 3 of 4

Denver, CO 80202 (303) 825-3050 Nathan Chambers Chambers, Dansky & Mulvahill 1601 Blake Street, #300 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 825-2222 Susan L. Foreman 1660 Wynkoop Street, Ste 810 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 825-3050

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2097

Filed 12/28/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 28th day of December, 2006 a true and correct copy of the above, WILLIAM SABLAN'S RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE PROPORTIONALITY EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS was filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and was served via first class mail to the following: Brenda Taylor ([email protected]) Phil Brimmer ([email protected]) /s/ Jennifer J. Feldman