C.D.Cal.: Evidence at trial came from a prior unrelated search; the parties should stipulate that it happened to avoid unnecessary confusion

This is on the government’s motion in limine concerning how evidence at trial should come in. The government had a search warrant for theft, and that was the way into his house. To avoid problematic questions, the court suggests a stipulation that avoids reference to the alleged theft because it’s not relevant, and the parties just stipulate that the search was lawful and leave it at that. States v. Andujo, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150713 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2019).

Defendant’s motion to reconsider is denied as untimely and on the merits. It rehashes what’s already been said and offers none of the reasons given under Local Rule 6.3 for it. “Defendant does not point to any clear error in law, change in controlling law, or newly discovered facts, and thus has provided no basis for this Court to reconsider its prior decisions ….” United States v. Okparaeke, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152347 (S.D. N.Y. Sept. 6, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.