USA v. Smith et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN PEARL SMITH, II,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:16-cr-00086-SLG-1
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER AT DOCKET 897
Before the Court at Docket 912 is defendant John Pearl Smith, II’s sealed
Motion to Reconsider the Order at Dkt. 897. No response from the government is
requested.1
The order at Docket 897 denied Mr. Smith’s motion in limine related to
government witness Cassie Schaeffer, who was Mr. Smith’s girlfriend at the time
of the homicides. The order addressed certain anticipated testimony of Ms.
Schaeffer and its admissibility in both the guilt and potential penalty phases of trial.
Mr. Smith asserts that the order “includes manifest errors of law” and should be
reconsidered.2 At this time on the current record before the Court, and for the
reasons stated in the order at Docket 897, the Court disagrees with Mr. Smith’s
1 Ak. L. Cr. R. 47.1(g)(3) (“No response to a motion for reconsideration may be filed unless
requested by the court.”).
2 Docket 912 at 1.
Case 3:16-cr-00086-SLG Document 913 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 3:16-cr-00086-SLG-1, United States v. Smith
Order Re Motion to Reconsider Order at Docket 897
Page 2 of 3
assertion that “there is no connection between the proposed evidence and the
charged crime”3 or that the proposed evidence should be excluded pursuant to
Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The Court finds no manifest error of law and denies
the motion to reconsider.
It bears noting that the Court does not have nearly the same amount of
information about this case as the parties. Other than an infrequent in camera
review of certain documents in this matter, the Court knows far less about the
potential evidence. It is the responsibility of the parties to adequately present in
their filings sufficient factual context relevant to the motion. The Court “is
handicapped in any effort to rule on subtle evidentiary questions outside a factual
context.”4 Accordingly, “[a]s the disputes regarding the admissibility of evidence
are made outside the context of the trial, the Court’s rulings on the motions in limine
are ‘subject to change when the case unfolds, particularly if the actual testimony
differs from what was expected.’”5 As such, the Court’s rulings on motions in limine
are preliminary determinations on the admissibility of the evidence under Evidence
Rule 104.6 The Court intends to “exercise sound judicial discretion to alter a
3 Docket 912 at 4.
4 Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984)
5 Colon v. Porliar, No. 09-CV-1006 MAD, 2012 WL 3241466, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2012) (quoting
Levitant v. City of New York Human Res. Admin., 2011 WL 795050, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. 2011))(quoting
Luce, 469 U.S. at 41 (“[o]wing to its preliminary nature, an in limine ruling “is subject to change
when the case unfolds’”); see also Odgen v. Cozumel, Inc., No. A-18-CV-00358-DAE-SH, 2019
WL 5295495, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2019) (“All rulings on motions in limine are preliminary
evidentiary rulings, not final.”).
6 See Blazina v. Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey, 2008 WL 4539484, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
Case 3:16-cr-00086-SLG Document 913 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:16-cr-00086-SLG-1, United States v. Smith
Order Re Motion to Reconsider Order at Docket 897
Page 3 of 3
previous in limine ruling” as appropriate before or during trial, but will require each
application to revisit the Court’s in limine rulings to be made outside the presence
of the jury.7
In light of the foregoing, the motion to reconsider at Docket 912 is DENIED.
DATED this 18th day of June, 2020, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7 Luce, 469 U.S. at 41.
Case 3:16-cr-00086-SLG Document 913 Filed 06/18/20 Page 3 of 3