Opinion
Case No. 3:19-cr-00356-MO-1
03-12-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. OSCAR ADRIAN MARQUEZ, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, J.,
On January 7, 2020, Defendant filed this Motion in Limine to Exclude Irrelevant and Unduly Prejudicial Evidence [ECF 34]. At a March 10, 2020, oral argument before Judge Marco A. Hernandez, the parties argued two other motions, and Judge Hernandez's ruling on those motions had the effect of resolving most of the issues in the January motion. Min. of Proceedings [ECF 94]. However, some elements of this motion were not addressed during that hearing, so I will resolve them here.
Defendant's motion [34] presents arguments relating to eleven pieces of evidence. In its response, the Government asserted that it does not intend to introduce the evidence described in Arguments 1, 5, 8, 9, and 10. Gov't. Resp. [ECF 84] at 1-4. The motion is DENIED as moot as to this evidence.
Defendant's Argument 11 refers to information provided by an anonymous witness who has since been identified to the defense via discovery disclosures and who will be named at trial. Gov't. Resp. [84] at 4-5. The motion is DENIED as moot as to this evidence.
Judge Hernandez's rulings on March 10, 2020, had the effect of resolving Defendant's Arguments 3, 6, and 7. The motion is DENIED as moot as to this evidence.
Defendant's Argument 2 seeks to exclude testimony referring to Defendant as a "stalker" and to his actions as "stalking." Def.'s Mot. [34] at 2. The motion is GRANTED as to the word "stalker" and DENIED as to the word "stalking."
Finally, Defendant's Argument 4 refers to a "photo of a gun or a BB gun [Adult Victim 1] presented at a hearing in Multnomah County or found in the vehicle Mr. Marquez was driving." Id. at 2. The Government asserts that this evidence was found in Defendant's car and argues that it is probative of Defendant's intent when he traveled from New Mexico to Oregon. Gov't. Resp. [84] at 2. This evidence would not have the same probative value if the photo had not been found in the car but instead had been introduced during a court hearing. I therefore DENY the motion as to this this evidence, but my ruling is contingent on the BB gun having been found in Defendant's car, as the Government asserts. // // // // //
CONCLUSION
As described above, Defendant's Motion in Limine [34] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 12 day of March, 2020.
/s/_________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge