Opinion
Barry J. Portman, Federal Public Defender, Daniel P. Blank, Angela M. Hansen, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, San Jose, CA, Counsel for Defendant David Lin,
Kevin V. Ryan, United States Attorney, Jane Shoemaker, Gary Fry, Assistant United States Attorneys, San Jose, CA, Counsel for Plaintiff United States.
ORDER ON MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF CHANG'S TRUCK BOMBING [Docket # 845]
RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge.
Defendant David Lin moves for an order allowing him to introduce evidence that Anthony Chang "firebombed" his Toyota truck in the Las Vegas desert in early 2000. Defendant's theory is that the evidence is admissible to show Chang's preparation and planning related to the bombing of Patrick Hsu. Defendant also claims that the evidence is admissible because it is inextricably intertwined with the acts charged against him and Chang. The court has read the papers and heard the arguments of counsel. The motion is denied.
There is no evidence that Chang set his truck on fire (he did not use a firebomb or explosive) as practice for anything related to the charged offenses. There is no evidence that he was practicing methods of destruction or doing anything other than trying to avoid payments on the truck and defraud his insurance company into paying for the loss of the truck.
Defendant argues that Chang persuaded Daniel Cubici to accompany him to the desert so he could deliver his truck somewhere and get a ride back without telling Cubici that he was going to burn the truck. Since Cubici was not aware ahead of time as to what Chang was going to do, defendant argues that this fact in someway supports the defendant's lack of knowledge of the bomb in the package he mailed for Chang. The court finds this argument without merit.