Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America v. Terry James Lynch

August 28, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TERRY JAMES LYNCH, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Chief U. S. District Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

The Court has before it Defendant's Motion in Limine (Dkt. 16). The motion asks the Court to exclude six categories of evidence. The Government either does not dispute, or does not intend to offer evidence regarding, three of the categories. Therefore, the Court will grant the motion as to those three categories. The Court will address the other three categories below.

ANALYSIS

1. Testimony of Angela Lynch -- Marital Privilege

Federal courts recognize the marital privilege as a way to protect the integrity of marriages and ensure that spouses freely communicate with each other. United States v. Griffin, 440 F.3d 1138, 1143 (9th Cir. 2006) (Internal citation omitted). "The privilege covers (1) only . . . words or acts intended as communication to the other spouse, (2) only those communications made during a valid marriage, and (3) only . . . those marital communications which are confidential." Id. (Internal quotations and citation omitted). However, the privilege is divided into two different categories -- the marital communications privilege and the adverse spousal testimony privilege. The marital communications privilege protects from disclosure private communications between spouses. The adverse spousal testimony privilege allows a spouse to refuse to testify adversely to her spouse. Id. (Internal citations omitted).

With respect to the marital communications privilege, the Government indicates that it does not intend to ask Ms. Lynch about confidential communications between her and Mr. Lynch. Instead, the Government intends to ask Ms. Lynch about her observations of what occurred during the relevant time period and communications she had with law enforcement. Under these circumstances, the Court will deny the motion as it relates to the marital communications privilege. However, the defendant may raise the objection during trial if the Government questions Ms. Lynch about confidential communications between the couple.

With respect to the adverse spousal testimony privilege, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that the "witness-spouse alone has a privilege to refuse to testify adversely; the witness may be neither compelled to testify nor foreclosed from testifying." Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 52 (1980). Allowing the witness-spouse to choose whether to testify "furthers the important public interest in marital harmony without unduly burdening legitimate law enforcement needs." Id. Thus, it will be left to Ms. Lynch whether she will invoke the adverse spousal testimony privilege.

2. Testimony of Officers Schneider and White -- Hearsay

Defendant asks the Court to exclude testimony by officers White and Schneider regarding statements made to them by an unknown family. The statements are generally that a male and female appeared on drugs, drove a car later tied to Ms. Lynch recklessly through the campground, and that the male pulled a knife on the campground host. Defendant asserts that the statements are hearsay.

Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). The Government suggests that the testimony will only be offered to show the officers' reaction to what they heard from the family. Under these circumstances, the Court agrees generally with the Government that concerns expressed to the officers by third parties about the defendant's behavior are not hearsay. However, if the evidence is only being offered to show the statement's affect upon the officers and to explain why they took specific action thereafter, it is probably not necessary to reveal to the jury the specifics of what was reported to the officers. A bare bones statement that concerns about the defendant's behavior were expressed to the officers should be sufficient.

On the other hand, it is possible that the precise statements to the officers caused them to take specific actions which are relevant in this case. If so, the Government can make a proffer outside the presence of the jury as to why the exact statement and the officer's specific response is relevant. The Court will then determine what additional details of the third party report may be presented to the jury.

Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion in limine, but subject to the limitations discussed above. However, regardless of what testimony is ultimately offered and admitted, the Court will, at defense counsel's request, give the jurors a limiting instruction that they should not consider the evidence for its truth, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.