USA v. Fuhrer et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
GLEN BALDWIN,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:19-cr-00026-TMB-SAO-3
ORDER ON DEFENDANT GLEN
BALDWIN’S ADDITIONAL MOTIONS IN
LIMINE (DKT. 822)
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Defendant Glen Baldwin’s Additional Motions in Limine (the
“Motions”).1 The Government opposes the Motions.2 For the following reasons, the Court
GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motions.
II. 	BACKGROUND
Baldwin makes the following requests in the Motions:
1. 	“Parties should give each other notice of their expected witnesses the day before calling
them to testify,”3
2. 	“Instead of re-calling witnesses, the parties should be allowed to conduct cross-
examination beyond the scope of the direct,”4
1 Dkt. 822 (Motions).
2 Dkt. 937 (Response).
3 Id. at 1.
4 Id. at 2.
Case 3:19-cr-00026-TMB Document 1028 Filed 03/07/22 Page 1 of 6

2
3. 	“Counsel for each party should be granted the right to conduct voir dire of prospective
jurors for 30 minutes,”5
4. 	“Witnesses should only be allowed to testify while wearing clear masks without having
any part of their faces concealed,”6
5. 	“Witnesses’ Curricula Vitae should be excluded from Evidence,”7
6. 	“Each defendant should be granted two additional peremptory strikes that may be
exercised separately or jointly,”8
7. 	“The government should refer to Mr. Baldwin as “Mr. Baldwin” or the “accused” but
not as the “defendant.”9
The Court granted in part and denied in part Baldwin’s first, second, third, fourth, and sixth
requests in the Trial Procedure Order issued March 4, 2022.10 The Court will now address the
remaining issues.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 3.
7 Id. at 5.
8 Id. at 7.
9 Id. at 8.
10 Dkt. 1020 (Trial Procedure Order).
Case 3:19-cr-00026-TMB Document 1028 Filed 03/07/22 Page 2 of 6

3
III. 	LEGAL STANDARD
“A motion in limine is a procedural device to obtain an early and preliminary ruling on the
admissibility of evidence”11 and may be used to request evidence be either excluded or admitted
before trial.12 Motions in limine are appropriate when the “mere mention of evidence during trial
would be highly prejudicial.”13 “[I]n limine rulings are not binding on the trial judge, and the judge
may always change his mind during the course of a trial.”14
A party seeking to exclude evidence through a motion in limine must satisfy a “high
standard” 	and 	show 	the evidence is 	inadmissible on 	all 	potential 	grounds.15 Otherwise,
“evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy and
potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.”16
11 Barnard v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, No. 2:03-cv-01524-RCJ-LRL, 2011 WL 221710, at
*1 (D. Nev. Jan. 21. 2011); Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. CV-01-658-TUC-
RCJ, 2009 WL 2971755, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 19, 2009).
12 See Fed. R. Evid. 103; United States v. Williams, 939 F.2d 721, 723 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming
district court’s ruling in limine that prosecution could admit impeachment evidence under Fed. R.
Evid. 609).
13 Barnard, 2011 WL 221710, at *1 (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1109 (9th ed. 2009));
Research Corp., 2009 WL 2971755, at *1.
14 Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758, n.3 (2000).
15 Barnard, 2011 WL 221710, at *1 (citations omitted); BNSF, 2010 WL 4534406, at *1 (citations
omitted); Research Corp., 2009 WL 2971755, at *1 (citations omitted).
16 Barnard, 2011 WL 221710, at *1 (citations omitted); BNSF, 2010 WL 4534406, at *1 (citations
omitted); Research Corp., 2009 WL 2971755, at *1 (citations omitted).
Case 3:19-cr-00026-TMB Document 1028 Filed 03/07/22 Page 3 of 6

4
IV. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Witnesses’ Curricula Vitae are Inadmissible
Baldwin argues that “curricula vitae (‘CV’s’) of experts and other witnesses should not be
admitted into evidence” because they (1) are inadmissible hearsay17 and/or (2) are cumulative of
evidence that will be elicited on direct examination.18 The Government “agrees that the parties
should not introduce CVs of any of their witnesses into evidence at trial.”19 The Court GRANTS
Baldwin’s request accordingly. The parties shall not introduce witnesses’ CVs into evidence.
B. 	The Government may Refer to Glen Baldwin as “Defendant”
Baldwin asks the Court to prohibit the Government from calling him “defendant.”20 He
argues that “[t]he label of ‘defendant’ is contrary to the presumption of innocence because it
implies a burden to defend.”21
The Court 	disagrees. 	As 	the Government 	argues, 	Baldwin 	is 	without 	question 	a
“defendant” as defined in the law; the word “defendant” is used throughout the indictment and the
Ninth Circuit’s model criminal jury instructions; the jury will know that Baldwin and his co-
defendants are the defendants in this case; and the Court will repeatedly tell the jury during jury
selection and trial that the defendants are presumed innocent, as are all defendants in criminal
17 Dkt. 822 at 5 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 801; Fed. R. Evid. 802).
18 Id. at 6 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 403).
19 Dkt. 937 at 7. Although the Government asserts “CVs are sometimes admissible” in “unusual
circumstance[s],” it does not argue those circumstances are present here. Id.
20 Dkt. 822 at 8.
21 Id.
Case 3:19-cr-00026-TMB Document 1028 Filed 03/07/22 Page 4 of 6

5
proceedings.22 The Court will not prohibit the Government from calling Baldwin “defendant” and
DENIES Baldwin’s request accordingly. However, the Court encourages the Government to refer
to the defendants by their names.
V. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motions
as follows:
1. 	Parties shall notify each other the evening before each trial day of all witnesses they intend
to call the following day.23
2. 	Absent agreement among all parties as to the scope of examination for a particular witness,
counsel will not be permitted to cross-examine witnesses on matters outside the scope of
the direct examination and will instead be required to re-call witnesses. In the event the
parties have unanimously agreed to permit counsel to cross-examine a witness beyond the
scope of the direct examination, counsel may not ask leading questions of non-hostile
witnesses.24
3. 	Counsel for each party will have 10 minutes to examine prospective jurors during each
session, i.e., 10 minutes for every 25 prospective jurors.25
4. 	Witnesses may not wear masks while testifying.26
22 See Dkt. 937 at 11–12. The Government also cites a myriad of decisions denying similar
requests. Id. at 12.
23 Dkt. 1020 at 3.
24 Id. at 4.
25 Id. at 2.
26 Id. at 3.
Case 3:19-cr-00026-TMB Document 1028 Filed 03/07/22 Page 5 of 6

6
5. 	Witnesses’ Curricula Vitae are excluded from evidence.
6. 	The Court grants each defendant two additional peremptory challenges to be exercised
individually.27
7. 	The Government may refer to Baldwin as “defendant.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 7th day of March, 2022.
/s/ Timothy M. Burgess
TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27 Id. at 2.
Case 3:19-cr-00026-TMB Document 1028 Filed 03/07/22 Page 6 of 6