United States v. Householder

10 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Strickland

    2:21-cr-00311 (BRM) (D.N.J. Jun. 7, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    It is well established that legal questions may not be argued before the jury. See, e.g., United States v. Baez, No. 21-0507, 2023 WL 6364648, at *8-9 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2023) (precluding argument before the jury regarding First Amendment right to protest, and selective prosecution, as these arguments “would inappropriately shift the responsibility for making determinations of law from the Court to the jury” and potentially invite jury nullification); United States v. Householder, 645 F.Supp.3d 844, 849-50 (S.D. Oh. 2022) (granting government's motion to exclude references to the discovery process or discovery disputes from argument before the jury, because “the constitutionality or propriety of evidence collection methods is a legal question for the Court”); United States v. Segui, No. 19-188, 2019 WL 8587291, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2019) (granting government's motion to preclude argument regarding First Amendment before jury in part because defendant conceded such argument was a legal question for the court rather than the jury).

  2. Ridge Corp. v. Kirk Nat'l Lease Co.

    2:23-cv-03012 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 30, 2024)

    ,” unless evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds, evidentiary rulings “should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.” United States v. Householder, 645 F.Supp.3d 844, 849 (S.D. Ohio 2022).

  3. United States v. Delgado

    1:22-cr-20187-1 (E.D. Mich. May. 23, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    A court's ruling on a pretrial motion in limine may be changed “at any point prior to or during the trial, as ‘facts may . . . come to the district court's attention which it did not anticipate at the time of its initial ruling.'” United States v. Householder, No. 1:20-CR-77, 2022 WL 17600159, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2022) (quoting UnitedStates v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 1994)).

  4. United States v. Abellana

    CRIMINAL 20-cr-20144 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2024)

    Defendant's legitimate billing, legitimate referrals of medically necessary prescriptions, and legitimate provisions of services, are irrelevant and unrelated to the issues of whether he conspired to commit health care fraud, committed health care or wire fraud, or received kickbacks as alleged in the indictment. See United States v. Pappas, No. 17-20465, 2022 WL 1506278, at *16 (E.D. Mich. May 12, 2022) (rejecting defendant's argument that a patient's testimony that he offered “individualized care” should have been admitted to dispel the government's charge that “every patient was treated the same” for billing purposes in a health care fraud case); United States v. Householder, No. 1:20-77, 2022 WL 17600159, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2022) (finding defendant's proffered evidence of “above-board [political] contributions” irrelevant and inadmissible to the Government's racketeering conspiracy charges). Evidence of Defendant's legitimate practices would serve to only confuse the jury and must be excluded pursuant to Rule 403.

  5. United States v. Thrush

    1:20-cr-20365 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 2, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Id. A court's ruling on a pretrial motion in limine may be changed “at any point prior to or during the trial, as ‘facts may . . . come to the district court's attention which it did not anticipate at the time of its initial ruling.'” United States v. Householder, No. 1:20-CR-77, 2022 WL 17600159, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2022) (quoting UnitedStates v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 1994)). Whether to grant a motion in limine falls within the sound discretion of the trial court.

  6. United States v. Hamead

    CRIMINAL 20-cr-20162 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 11, 2024)   Cited 2 times

    . See United States v. Pappas, No. 17-CR-20465, 2022 WL 1506278, at *16 (E.D. Mich. May 12, 2022) (rejecting defendant's argument that a patient's testimony that “he offered individualized care” should have been admitted to dispel the government's charge that “every patient was treated the same” for billing purposes in a health care fraud case); United States v. Householder, No. 1:20-CR-77, 2022 WL 17600159, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2022) (finding defendant's proffered evidence of “above-board [political] contributions” irrelevant and inadmissible to the Government's racketeering conspiracy charges). Pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

  7. Cain v. City of Detroit

    No. 13-CV-10525 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2023)

    In addition, a ruling on a pretrial motion in limine may be revisited and modified “at any point prior to or during the trial, as ‘facts may... come to the district court's attention which it did not anticipate at the time of its initial ruling.'” United States v. Householder, 2022 WL 17600159, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2022),

  8. Lowe v. Walbro LLC

    1:18-cv-12835 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 14, 2023)

    (citing The Modern Workplace: Contemporary Legal Issues in Employment & Labor Law Local Panel Discussion, 6 BELMONT L. REV. 245, 261-62 (2019)). A court's ruling on a pretrial motion in limine may be changed “at any point prior to or during the trial, as ‘facts may . . . come to the district court's attention which it did not anticipate at the time of its initial ruling.'” United States v. Householder, No. 1:20-CR-77, 2022 WL 17600159, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2022) (quoting United States v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 1994)). Whether to grant a motion in limine falls within the sound discretion of the trial court. Branham v. Thomas Cooley Law School, 689 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2012).

  9. United States v. Delgado

    1:22-cr-20187-1 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 5, 2023)

    Id. A court's ruling on a pretrial motion in limine may be changed “at any point prior to or during the trial, as ‘facts may . . . come to the district court's attention which it did not anticipate at the time of its initial ruling.'” United States v. Householder, No. 1:20-CR-77, 2022 WL 17600159, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2022) (quoting United States v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 1994)). Whether to grant a motion in limine falls within the sound discretion of the trial court.

  10. United States v. Judd

    672 F. Supp. 3d 389 (E.D. Mich. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Here, the fact that Mr. Judd can direct the Court to instances where he properly billed Medicaid is completely unrelated and irrelevant to a determination of whether he is guilty or innocent of the charged offense of Healthcare Fraud. See United States v. Dimora, 750 F.3d 619, 630 (6th Cir. 2014) ("For the same reason that prior 'bad acts' may not be used to show a predisposition to commit crimes, prior 'good acts' generally may not be used to show a predisposition not to commit crimes."); United States v. Daneshvar, 925 F.3d 766, 779 (6th Cir. 2019) (same); see also United States v. Pappas, No. 17-CR-20465, 2022 WL 1506278, at *16 (E.D. Mich. May 12, 2022) (Hood, J.) (rejecting defendant's argument that a patient's testimony that "he offered individualized care" should have been admitted to dispel the government's charge that "every patient was treated the same" for billing purposes in a health care fraud case); United States v. Householder, No. 1:20-CR-77, 645 F.Supp.3d 844, 852-53 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2022) (finding defendant's proffered evidence of "above-board [political] contributions" irrelevant and inadmissible to the Government's racketeering conspiracy charges).