United States v. Ware

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW WARE, Defendant.

No. CR-21-323-F

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

April 7, 2022

ORDER ON EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS

STEPHEN P. FRIOT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

A. Government's Consolidated Motion in Limine (doc. no. 21).

Jury nullification. The motion is DENIED on this point. The court is confident that lead defense counsel a respected member of the bar of this court, will not be tempted to suggest jury nullification-which would be a bad move for several reasons, not the least of which is that the court would promptly and emphatically disabuse the jury of any notion that nullification is an option.

Potential punishment. For the same reasons, the motion is DENIED on this point.

State's decision not to bring charges. The motion is PROVISIONALLY GRANTED^[1] on this point. The state's decision to decline charges is entirely irrelevant. Even if there were some minimal relevance to that fact, the possible probative value would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues and misleading the jury. Rule 403, F.R.Evid.

Evidence of defendant's good character. In response to this point, defendant argues that “this entire trial is related to [defendant's] character” and that he “should not be precluded from asking questions about good qualities exhibited by Mr. Ware during his time as the second in command of the facility.” Doc. no. 27, at 2 3. The court disagrees. The issues presented by defendant's plea of not guilty to the charges in the indictment are much narrower. Just as the government has no general license to present evidence tending to show that defendant is a bad person, the defendant is not entitled to present evidence, untethered to the issues of fact the jury will be called upon to decide, of his general good character. Looking at it more narrowly, the government is not required to prove bad character as a trait pertinent to any of the counts in the indictment, so generalized testimony bearing on the defendant's character comes in only under Rule 608 (and subject to the strictures of that rule) if the defendant chooses to take the stand. Accordingly, on this point, the motion is PROVISIONALLY GRANTED.

Evidence of victims' bad character. On this point, the motion is DENIED, as a motion in limine. The reason for this is that the motion gives the court no real guidance as to just what evidence the government wants the court to exclude. See, Part G of the chambers rules of the undersigned. That said, the court will give the parties some general guidance. General evidence as to a victim's criminal background is inadmissible unless (i) the victim testifies and there is a basis for impeachment under the criteria specifically laid out in Rule 609, or (ii) some aspect of a victim's background is clearly shown to be relevant to the jury's evaluation of Mr. Ware's decisions relating to the events placed in issue by the allegations in the indictment. The court says “clearly” because Rule 403 quickly comes into play here. The jurors will already assume that the victims were in the jail for some unflattering reason. Beyond that, any unflattering evidence relating to a victim-witness will have to have a direct bearing on matters that are fair game for the jury's consideration in determining whether the government has proven these specific charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Failure to call an equally available witness. On this point, the motion is D...