Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-167 - USA v. MAHMOUD et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-167 - USA v. MAHMOUD et al
January 5, 2018
PDF | More
ENTRY ON MOTION IN LIMINE - This cause is before the Court on the Government's Motion in Limine Dkt. No. 175. The Defendants have not filed a response, and the time for doing so has passed. See Dkt. No. 168. The Court, being duly advised, GRANTS the motion for the reasons set forth below. The Government seeks a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of certain evidence it plans to tender for introduction at the trial. It has identified texts and email messages that it argues are either not hearsay or are admissible under exceptions to the hearsay rule. Specifically, the Government argues that each identified text or email is either (1) not hearsay (a) because it is a question, not a statement; (b) because it is a statement made a party opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A); or (c) because it is a co-conspirator statement made in furtherance of the conspiracy under Rule 801(d)(2 (E)2; or (2) that it falls within a hearsay exception, namely to demonstrate the Defendant's then-existing state of mind under Rule 803(3) or (b) under the residual exception under Rule 807. The Court finds that the Government's proffer is sufficient for the Court to make a preliminary determination that these texts and emails are either not hearsay or fall within one of the hearsay exceptions. The Defendants may, of course, make objections at trial as evidence is proffered as to MAHDI KHELIFI (2), HAMZA DRIDI (4). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/5/2018. (JDC)ENTRY ON MOTION IN LIMINE - This cause is before the Court on the Government's Motion in Limine Dkt. No. 175. The Defendants have not filed a response, and the time for doing so has passed. See Dkt. No. 168. The Court, being duly advised, GRANTS the motion for the reasons set forth below. The Government seeks a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of certain evidence it plans to tender for introduction at the trial. It has identified texts and email messages that it argues are either not hearsay or are admissible under exceptions to the hearsay rule. Specifically, the Government argues that each identified text or email is either (1) not hearsay (a) because it is a question, not a statement; (b) because it is a statement made a party opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A); or (c) because it is a co-conspirator statement made in furtherance of the conspiracy under Rule 801(d)(2 (E)2; or (2) that it falls within a hearsay exception, namely to demonstrate the Defendant's then-existing state of mind under Rule 803(3) or (b) under the residual exception under Rule 807. The Court finds that the Government's proffer is sufficient for the Court to make a preliminary determination that these texts and emails are either not hearsay or fall within one of the hearsay exceptions. The Defendants may, of course, make objections at trial as evidence is proffered as to MAHDI KHELIFI (2), HAMZA DRIDI (4). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/5/2018. (JDC)