@m00c0w and ors
I am still going down the geofence rabbit hole, because I think newcomer Law Tubers have misrepresented this issue, which will become clear on appeal.
In my opinion, Judge Gull's order following the motion in limine hearing needs to be read in context of Franks III, the state's motion in limine, and the 3 day hearing. On direct appeal, the defence is constrained to this record. Also the order is bland and just restates what the law is anyway.
IMO the record shows the D arguing about 3 phones on a geofence map. And the D knows who these phones belong to. And IMO they called at least one of these witnesses at trial.
So does anyone know of anything else the D raised on the record? Strangely, I never found anything about Geofence that came up at the 3 day hearing, but i could have missed it? And IMO they did not show proof at trial or try to admit it either.
My angle here, is that the geofence is a red herring. Two of the phones IMO, belong to the boyfriend and girlfriend out for a walk, and the girlfriend testified they saw nothing. So this 'geofence' evidence doesn't add anything for the jury. The D knows who the 3 witnesses are and could call them. The D would obviously not be able to claim they were the killers, or that they were at the crime scene.
It is actually strange to me that the D did not call agent Horan at the 3 day hearing, so I can only conclude he wasn't actually useful to them?
Thoughts appreciated!
Judge Gull's Geofence Ruling
9. Any reference to geofencing and/or any testimony from Kevin Horan about geofencing or the findings from any geofence search that is not relevant or is for the purpose of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401. IRE 401. Burden is on the opponent to show why it is relevant. Mullins v. State, 646 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. 1995). Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Rolston v. State, 81 N.E.3d 1097 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). Evidence may be excluded if it confuses the issues. Lee v. Hamilton, 841 N.E.2d 223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)
acrobat.adobe.com
MOO