Free Motion to Strike - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 1684

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Criminal Action No. 00-CR-0531-D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM CONCEPCION SABLAN, RUDY CABRERA SABLAN, Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________

William Sablan's Motion To Strike Non-Institutional Incidents From Nonstatutory Aggravating Factor Of Future Dangerousness [Wm DP-17] __________________________________________________________________ Defendant William Sablan ("William"), through undersigned courtappointed counsel, respectfully requests the Court to strike the government's allegations of prior criminal conduct from its nonstatutory aggravating factor of "Future Dangerousness of the Defendant." (NOI at 5). As grounds, counsel state: 1. In support of its future dangerousness nonstatutory aggravating factor, the government lists six "criminal cases" in paragraphs (a) - (f) under the heading "Non-Institutional Setting". These cases involve conduct between 1984 and 1996 that prompted the filing of criminal charges in Saipan. 2. These paragraphs must be stricken from the NOI because they are not
1

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 1684

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 2 of 4

adequately related to the issue of whether William will be a future danger to inmates and staff when in a prison setting. Moreover, the unfair prejudice of introducing this information outweighs its probative value. 3. In United States v. Copper, 91 F.Supp.2d 90, 111 (D.D.C. 2000), the court held that the government's evidence should be limited to Copper's future dangerousness within the context of serving a life sentence in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, stating that "whatever violent or criminal capabilities Cooper has outside the prison walls has no probative value when, if not sentenced to death, Cooper will spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted of a capital offense." Id. at 111-12. See also United States v. Gilbert, 120 F.Supp.2d 147 (D.Mass. 2000) (prosecution conceded that jury must evaluate defendant's future dangerousness in the context of life in prison setting); United States v. Peoples, 74 F.Supp.2d 930, 932 (W.D. Mo. 1999) (future "dangerousness should not be measured in the same manner as if a defendant were to be `uncaged'; life in prison without parole, a firmly fixed federal requirement, must mean that the focus of dangerousness analysis is on prison conditions"). 4. Subparagraphs (a) - (f) of the government's NOI are inadequately related to the ultimate claims of dangerousness in federal prison. They contrast, for example, to the allegation in Peoples that the defendant forcibly sodomized a
2

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 1684

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 3 of 4

fellow inmate while awaiting trial, which the court found to be "obviously pertinent (depending on evidentiary support)" to a claim of dangerousness in federal prison. Id. at 933. 5. The concept of future dangerousness is further discussed in William's Memorandum Brief at 8-10. WHEREFORE, William requests the Court to strike subparagraphs (a) - (f) of the "Non-Institutional Setting" from the nonstatutory aggravating factor of future dangerousness. Dated: February 13, 2006 Respectfully submitted, Patrick J. Burke Dean Neuwirth Burke & Neuwirth P.C. 1660 Wynkoop Street, Suite 810 Denver, CO 80202 303-825-3050 Nathan Chambers Chambers, Dansky & Mulvahill 1601 Blake Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 303-825-2222

By: s/ Susan L. Foreman Susan L. Foreman 1660 Wynkoop Street, Suite 810 Denver, CO 80202 303-825-3050 Counsel for William Sablan

3

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 1684

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 13, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing Motion To Strike Non-Institutional Incidents From Nonstatutory Aggravating Factor Of Future Dangerousness [Wm DP-17] with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EFC systemt which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail address: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] By: s/ Susan L. Foreman

4