Free Response - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6

PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona SHARON K. SEXTON Assistant U.S. Attorney [email protected] Arizona State Bar No. 012359 Two Renaissance Square 40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Telephone: (602) 514-7500

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Eric Miguel, Defendant. The United States, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby responds to the Defendant's Motion in Limine to Preclude as follows: The defendant has cited no caselaw to support his motion in limine. The Government could find no caselaw regarding defendant's position. The defendant in essence is asking the court to exclude evidence regarding the defendant's statements because the statements are prejudicial to the defendant. The statements show that the defendant recognized his own fault in causing the victim's injuries. The statements show consciousness of guilt. The defense argues that the interview questions call for a "speculative response" and thus, are not relevant. The government submits that the interview questions were very creative on the part of the law enforcement officers who were faced with a suspect who potentially could have killed his daughter. Regarding the interview questions regarding the child's mother, the relevance is particularly important. The defendant told the child's mother that he did not cause the child's death. Later, when the mother confronted the defendant in jail about his statements to the FBI, the defendant denied ever even talking to the FBI. The statements, that the mother would be CR-04-1289-PHX-EHC
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE

Case 2:04-cr-01289-EHC

Document 87

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

"mad" if she knew the truth, and that it was his "fault" are thus of particular importance and relevance. The interview questions about the child's thoughts are just as important. The defendant admits that the child would have thought "my daddy did it." The defendant in this case is going to argue that this child died an unknown death. Yet, the defendant felt such responsibility for his handling of his daughter that he believed his daughter would blame him for her death. There are only two people who know how the defendant handled this child before her death, the defendant and the child. The defendant's statements thus are extremely important to the prosecution of this case. The defendant's acknowledgment of how the victim would have perceived his conduct is a fair and probing area into the defendant's thoughts and acknowledgment of guilt. Fed. R. Evid. 403 only allows relevant evidence to be precluded, if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. These are the defendant's own statements. The probative value is high. The statements should not be precluded under 403. Respectfully submitted this 17th day of January, 2006. PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona S/Sharon K. Sexton

19 20 21 22 23 24
Jeffrey A. Williams I hereby certify that on January 17, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

SHARON K. SEXTON Assistant U.S. Attorney

25 26 27 28 2

Case 2:04-cr-01289-EHC

Document 87

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 2 of 2