kittythehare
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2016
- Messages
- 18,562
- Reaction score
- 109,246
1. On February 15, 2019, the government filed a Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Argument of Plea Negotiations on the grounds of relevance and prejudice, but noted that if the evidence was allowed, it should not go unrebutted by the government. (R. 251) The defense responded and argued that the offer to plead guilty was relevant to his mitigation case, and that the fact of the willingness to plead was sufficient to present the mitigating factor to the jury without creating undue prejudice and confusion. (R. 278)
held that: the Defendant may, “by way of stipulation, testimony, or other evidence,” submit information that he was willing to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence. (R. 427 pg. 3) However, in response, the government may also present information “related to those negotiations” that are necessary to place them “in context.” Id. 3. The parties have attempted to negotiate a stipulation that addresses Mr. Christensen’s willingness to plead guilty, and the additional “context” authorized by the Court. To date no agreement has been reached, and the parties do not believe one will be reached prior to trial. Based on the conversations between counsel, it is clear that parties fundamentally disagree on both the historical facts and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn overall from the course of events leading up to and following plea discussions. Specifically, the information sought to be included by the government is beyond the scope of what is necessary to provide the appropriate context which implicates potential violations of the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, and is more prejudicial than probative under the FDPA. 4. One area of agreement is that the best way to proceed at trial is by stipulation. Although the Court noted that the evidence could be presented by “proffer, testimony, or other evidence,” any testimony or other evidence will invariably consist of statements by counsel who personally participated in the negotiations (Ms. Pollock, Mr. Tucker, and Mr. Taseff for the defense, and Mr. Freres and Mr. Miller for the government). On information and belief, the only non-attorney witnesses who could
and prior counsel Mr. Bruno. No similar “prover” was present on the defense side during exchanges after Mr. Bruno was relieved. Additionally, some of the negotiations were done by telephone and email, which only the attorneys involved have personal knowledge of
this!!
5. The issues and evidence are of critical importance --- with a unique potential for prejudice, evidenced both by the scope and quantity of litigation concerning the evidence and by the intense and highly prejudicial (and often inaccurate) coverage in the press over the last few days.1 Any misstep leading to erroneous introduction of such potentially damaging evidence could irreparably taint the reliability of the upcoming sentencing proceedings, within the meaning of the FDPA and the 8th Amendment, with no way to unring the bell
THE BELLRINGERS BEING THEMSELVES- HAVING #ACCIDENTALLY PROOFED THE DOCUMENT AND SUBMITTED IT AS AN OPEN DOCUMENT WHILE LATER CLAIMING IT WAS MEANT TO BE SEALED. (CHILDREN)
(ANOTHER TANTRUM THREATENED here
6. Undersigned counsel believe it is critical to sort out, in advance, the permissible scope of evidence, both on direct and on rebuttal, before the penalty phase commences. Otherwise, additional litigation on this topic is likely to ensue following opening statements
See e.g. Lawyers for convicted murderer said client offered to locate Chinese scholar’s body, https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...0190626-5qrk45ikanbznesjnqmyox6lqy-story.html, Guilt and looming death penalty, key question remains: Where is Yingying? (misstating plea negotiations).
They are demanding another hearing for the failed coup they attempted by opening these documents.
We'll wreck your 4 July festivities if you wreck ours kinda thing
Anyways, here's the link
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief – #437 in United States v. Christensen (C.D. Ill., 2:17-cr-20037) – CourtListener.com
held that: the Defendant may, “by way of stipulation, testimony, or other evidence,” submit information that he was willing to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence. (R. 427 pg. 3) However, in response, the government may also present information “related to those negotiations” that are necessary to place them “in context.” Id. 3. The parties have attempted to negotiate a stipulation that addresses Mr. Christensen’s willingness to plead guilty, and the additional “context” authorized by the Court. To date no agreement has been reached, and the parties do not believe one will be reached prior to trial. Based on the conversations between counsel, it is clear that parties fundamentally disagree on both the historical facts and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn overall from the course of events leading up to and following plea discussions. Specifically, the information sought to be included by the government is beyond the scope of what is necessary to provide the appropriate context which implicates potential violations of the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, and is more prejudicial than probative under the FDPA. 4. One area of agreement is that the best way to proceed at trial is by stipulation. Although the Court noted that the evidence could be presented by “proffer, testimony, or other evidence,” any testimony or other evidence will invariably consist of statements by counsel who personally participated in the negotiations (Ms. Pollock, Mr. Tucker, and Mr. Taseff for the defense, and Mr. Freres and Mr. Miller for the government). On information and belief, the only non-attorney witnesses who could
and prior counsel Mr. Bruno. No similar “prover” was present on the defense side during exchanges after Mr. Bruno was relieved. Additionally, some of the negotiations were done by telephone and email, which only the attorneys involved have personal knowledge of
this!!
5. The issues and evidence are of critical importance --- with a unique potential for prejudice, evidenced both by the scope and quantity of litigation concerning the evidence and by the intense and highly prejudicial (and often inaccurate) coverage in the press over the last few days.1 Any misstep leading to erroneous introduction of such potentially damaging evidence could irreparably taint the reliability of the upcoming sentencing proceedings, within the meaning of the FDPA and the 8th Amendment, with no way to unring the bell
THE BELLRINGERS BEING THEMSELVES- HAVING #ACCIDENTALLY PROOFED THE DOCUMENT AND SUBMITTED IT AS AN OPEN DOCUMENT WHILE LATER CLAIMING IT WAS MEANT TO BE SEALED. (CHILDREN)
(ANOTHER TANTRUM THREATENED here
6. Undersigned counsel believe it is critical to sort out, in advance, the permissible scope of evidence, both on direct and on rebuttal, before the penalty phase commences. Otherwise, additional litigation on this topic is likely to ensue following opening statements
See e.g. Lawyers for convicted murderer said client offered to locate Chinese scholar’s body, https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...0190626-5qrk45ikanbznesjnqmyox6lqy-story.html, Guilt and looming death penalty, key question remains: Where is Yingying? (misstating plea negotiations).
They are demanding another hearing for the failed coup they attempted by opening these documents.
We'll wreck your 4 July festivities if you wreck ours kinda thing
Anyways, here's the link
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief – #437 in United States v. Christensen (C.D. Ill., 2:17-cr-20037) – CourtListener.com
