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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-132 - United States of America v. Knapp


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-132 - United States of America v. Knapp
June 17, 2016
PDF | More
Memorandum Opinion and Order. Upon further reflection however the Court is persuaded that evidence of drug abuse contemporaneous with the alleged unauthorized access, could be admissible under Rule 404(b)(2). The government should be permitted to prove or refute any alleged actual motivation for Defendant's purported conduct. Moreover although circumstantial evidence of drug abuse is prejudicial to Defendant, this may well be precisely the type of evidence contemplated by Rule 404(b)(2). As such, given its probative value as tending to show motive as well as its other permissible uses under Rule 404(b)(2), the Court simply cannot support its prior conclusion that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Thus the Court reverses and revises its preliminary ruling in response to the government's Motion in Limine. The Court intends to allow the government to introduce the evidence of alleged drug paraphernalia ostensibly discovered in Defendant's personal belongings and vehicle at the hospital and of her refusal to submit to a drug test as a condition of continued employment. If such evidence is admitted the jury will receive contemporaneously and in the Court's final instructions to the jury a limiting instruction to the effect that such evidence is being presented and may be considered by them, if at all, solely to establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident for the alleged unauthorized access. The Court has previously ordered the submission of a joint proposed limiting instruction 28 25. Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II on 6/17/16. (A,P)
June 20, 2016
PDF | More
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Upon further reflection however the Court is persuaded that evidence of drug abuse contemporaneous with the alleged unauthorized access, could be admissible under Rule 404(b)(2). The government should be permitted to prove or refute any alleged actual motivation for Defendant's purported conduct. Moreover although circumstantial evidence of drug abuse is prejudicial to Defendant, this may well be precisely the type of evidence contemplated by Rule 404(b)(2). As such, given its probative value as tending to show motive as well as its other permissible uses under Rule 404(b)(2), the Court simply cannot support its prior conclusion that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Thus the Court reverses and revises its preliminary ruling in response to the government's Motion in Limine. The Court intends to allow the government to introduce the evidence of alleged drug paraphernalia ostensibly discovered in Defendant's personal belongings and vehicle at the hospital and of her refusal to submit to a drug test as a condition of continued employment. If such evidence is admitted the jury will receive contemporaneously and in the Court's final instructions to the jury a limiting instruction to the effect that such evidence is being presented and may be considered by them, if at all, solely to establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident for the alleged unauthorized access. The Court has previously ordered the submission of a joint proposed limiting instruction 25 28. Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II on 6/20/2016. (B,TM)