United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION IN
LIMINE AND GRANTING SECOND MOTION IN LIMINE
Thomas
L. Ludington United States District Judge.
On
February 27, 2019, an indictment was issued against Defendant
Polk for one count of possession of child pornography
involving a prepubescent minor or a minor who had not
attained 12 years of age. ECF No. 1. On July 16, 2019, the
Government filed a motion in limine. ECF No. 29. The next
week, it filed a second motion in limine. ECF No. 31. The
first motion in limine will be granted in part and denied in
part. The second motion in limine will be granted.
I.
In its
first motion in limine, the Government requests that
Defendant be prohibited from “asking any question,
introducing any evidence or making any statement” about
the following:
A. Age of consent, specifically any reference to “any
alleged age of consent contrary to existing U.S. law.”;
B. Undisclosed defense exhibits;
C. References to potential punishment or Defendant's
personal background, health or family;
D. Exculpatory hearsay;
E. Plea negotiations;
F. Polygraph examinations or results;
G. Impeachment of witnesses through others' reports;
H. Expert opinions, specifically requesting that the Court
not “declare that a witness is qualified as an
expert” (quoting U.S. v. Johnson, 488 F.3d
690, 697 (6th Cir. 2007));
ECF No. 29 at PageID.79-80. The Government also requests that
it be permitted “to admit a sampling of the child
pornography found to have been in defendant's possession
into evidence and to publish those images to the jury in a
way that they are not viewable to members of the public who
attend the trial.” Id. at PageID.80.
In his
response, Defendant stipulated to all of the relief sought by
the Government except for the Government's request
seeking to limit references to Defendant's personal
background, specifically his family. Defendant contends that
the Government's request to limit references to
Defendant's “‘family circumstances' ...