Opinion
Case No. 1:18-CR-03984 KWR
09-08-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. QUENTIN VENENO, Jr., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Government's Motion in Limine to prohibit discussion of sentencing or punishment at trial, filed July 27, 2020 (Doc. 68). For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the Government's motion is well taken and therefore is GRANTED.
The sentence or punishment following a guilty verdict is not relevant to the jury's determination. See Tenth Cir. Criminal Pattern Jury Instr. 1.20 (2011) ("You should not discuss or consider the possible punishment in any way while deciding your verdict.").
"Unless a statute specifically requires jury participation in determining punishment, the jury shall not be informed of the possible penalties." United States v. Parrish, 925 F.2d 1293, 1299 (10th Cir. 1991) (sentence or punishment is "irrelevant to the jury's task") (overruled on other grounds); see also United States v. Greer, 620 F.2d 1383, 1385 (10th Cir. 1980) (noting that absent a statutory requirement that the jury determine punishment, "nothing is left 'for jury determination beyond the guilt or innocence of an accused.'") (quoting Chapman v. United States, 443 F.2d 917, 920 (10th Cir. 1971)). Moreover, allowing a jury to consider punishment invites jury nullification and is prejudicial. Crease v. McKune, 189 F.3d 1188, 1194 (10th Cir. 1999); Greer, 620 F.2d at 1384-85 (presenting information to jury about possible sentence is prejudicial). Therefore, the Court will exclude any reference to punishment or sentence at trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
KEA W. RIGGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE