This is on the government\u2019s 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\u2019s 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).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s motion to reconsider is denied as untimely and on the merits. It rehashes what\u2019s already been said and offers none of the reasons given under Local Rule 6.3 for it. \u201cDefendant 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 ….\u201d United States v. Okparaeke, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152347 (S.D. N.Y. Sept. 6, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This is on the government\u2019s 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 … Continue reading