USA v. Jackson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DELTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 2:24-cr-00018-KGB
PERCY JACKSON 	DEFENDANT
ORDER
On December 8, 2025, the Court conducted a final pretrial conference with counsel for the
United States, defendant Percy Jackson, and counsel for Jackson was present. The Court made the
following rulings and addressed the following matters:
1. 	The Court will inform the jury to expect that trial will take three days. The Court
reviewed with counsel and Jackson an anticipated schedule for trial, with the understanding that
the schedule may be modified as the need arises during the course of trial based on juror schedules
and counsels’ schedules, requests for recesses, and other matters.
2. 	The Court will seat a 12-person jury with two alternates. Jackson will be permitted
10 preemptory strikes to the 12-person panel and one strike to the alternate-panel. The government
will be permitted six preemptory strikes to the 12-person panel and one strike to the alternate-
panel.
3. 	The Court’s practice is to instruct before closing and to send an agreed-upon,
admitted set of exhibits and one set of instructions to the jury room during deliberation.
4. 	The Court admonishes the parties to ensure that questions for witnesses are tailored
and specific. The Court will not tolerate broad, vague questions that will only confuse the jury.
5. 	The Court distributed a proposed summary of the Indictment that is acceptable to
counsel for the government and Jackson.
Case 2:24-cr-00018-KGB Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 5

2
6. 	At this time, Jackson will waive his right to be present at any bench conferences
that might occur given that he has been provided with the ability to review real time transcription
of those conferences, but he may communicate clearly to the Court a desire to attend a bench
conference before it commences if he opts to exercise his right to be present at a bench conference.
7. 	The parties agreed that all plea offers made by the government were conveyed to
Jackson.
8. 	The Court will advise the jury that, from time to time, counsel and assistants may
need to move in and out of the courtroom and that the jury should draw no negative conclusion
from that.
9. 	Counsel for the government and Jackson have stipulated to certain matters, which
stipulations were discussed at the pretrial conference. Counsel are in agreement as to how these
stipulations will be presented to the jury during trial.
10. 	Federal Rule of Evidence 615(a) and (b) have been invoked by counsel for the
government and the Court.
11. 	The government provided notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 609
regarding Jackson’s prior convictions (Dkt. No. 36). To the extent the notice requires a ruling from
the Court, the Court grants the government’s motion and will follow Federal Rule of Evidence
609.
12. 	The government also provided notice of intent to present evidence pursuant to
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) as to Jackson (Dkt. No. 38). Specifically, the government intends
to present evidence of a prior conviction for two counts of felon in possession of a firearm in Case
No. 2:09-cr-20185; especially aggravated robbery in Case No. 04-05306; aggravated robbery in
Case No. 05-01812; two counts of aggravated robbery in Case No. 05-01813; aggravated robbery
Case 2:24-cr-00018-KGB Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 5

3
in Case No. 05-01814; and aggravated robbery in Case No. 05-01815 (Id., at 2). Jackson filed a
response in opposition to the admission of the Rule 404(b) evidence (Dkt. No. 45).
As to the prior conviction for two counts of felon in possession of a firearm in Case No.
2:09-cr-20185, the Court determines that the proposed Rule 404(b) evidence is admissible under
controlling case law. 	Because Jackson intends to assert a general denial defense, the proposed
evidence is relevant to show his knowledge and intent and to show absence of mistake. See United
States v. Banks, 706 F.3d 901, 907 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Hawkins, 548 F.3d
1143, 1147 (8th Cir. 2008)); United States v. Lindsey, 702 F.3d 1092, 1099 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting
United States v. Anthony, 537 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir. 2008)) (noting that Rule 404(b) evidence is
admissible when a defendant places his state of mind in issue by asserting a general denial
defense). 	Further, the Rule 404(b) evidence is similar in kind, see Hawkins, 548 F.3d at 1147
(quoting United States v. Cook, 454 F.3d 938, 941 (8th Cir. 2006)) (noting the prior conviction
need not involve the same illegal drug as the charged offense), and not overly remote in time, see
United States v. Gaddy, 532 F.3d 783, 789–90 (8th Cir. 2008) (admitting prior convictions four,
ten, and 11 years old as not too remote in time); United States v. Halk, 634 F.3d 482, 487–88 (8th
Cir. 2011) (noting that the amount of time of incarceration between offenses is an important
consideration when ruling on admissibility). The Court will give a proposed limiting instruction
to address any potential prejudice resulting from the introduction of such evidence, if requested.
See Banks, 706 F.3d at 907; United States v. Turner, 583 F.3d 1062, 1066 (8th Cir. 2009); Gaddy,
532 F.3d at 790.
As to the prior convictions for especially aggravated robbery in Case No. 04-05306;
aggravated robbery in Case No. 05-01812; two counts of aggravated robbery in Case No. 05-
01813; aggravated robbery in Case No. 05-01814; and aggravated robbery in Case No. 05-01815,
Case 2:24-cr-00018-KGB Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 5

4
the Court excludes such evidence during the trial of this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 403, determining that, although relevant pursuant to Rules 401 and 402, the probative
value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice pursuant to
Rule 403 given all facts and circumstances in this case as stated by the Court on the record at the
pretrial.
13. 	The government filed a motion to preclude Jackson from eliciting his own hearsay
statements at trial and making improper arguments and statements (Dkt. No. 42). The Court heard
argument from counsel for the government and Jackson. The Court grants the motion. Jackson
may not attempt to elicit improper hearsay testimony in general and specifically is precluded from
attempting 	to 	elicit 	improper 	hearsay 	testimony 	regarding 	Jackson’s 	interview 	with 	law
enforcement in this case (Id., at 1-2). 	Further, neither Jackson’s counsel nor counsel for the
government may offer their opinions in opening statement, closing argument, or questioning of
witnesses that witnesses are “liars” or have “lied.” (Id., at 3-4). 	Although counsel may make
argument regarding credibility relying on the factors set forth in the Court’s instruction regarding
credibility, credibility determinations are reserved for the jury; counsel’s opinions on those matters
are irrelevant and inadmissible pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402. See United
States v. Peyro, 786 F.2d 826, 831 (8th Cir. 1986).
14. 	The government filed a motion to preclude Jackson from eliciting testimony and
making improper arguments regarding the State of Arkansas’s dismissal of charges related to the
instant offense (Dkt. No. 47). The Court heard argument from counsel for the government and
Jackson. 	The Court grants the motion and excludes such evidence, testimony, and argument
pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403. See United States v. Riley, 684 F.2d 542,
546 (8th Cir. 1982); United States v. Reed, 641 F.3d 992, 993-94 (8th Cir. 2011). Further, the Court
Case 2:24-cr-00018-KGB Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 4 of 5

5
excludes all evidence, testimony, and argument that misleads the jury into believing that jury
nullification is appropriate or that invites the jury to employ it. See United States v. Drefke, 707
F.2d 978, 982 (8th Cir. 1983); United States v. Wiley, 503 F.2d 106, 107 (8th Cir. 1974).
15. 	This Court previously denied a motion to suppress (Dkt. No. 32). Although Jackson
may appeal this Court’s Order on the motion to suppress after the trial of this matter, if appropriate,
Jackson may not reargue those issues involved in the motion to suppress to the Court or, more
importantly, to the jury during the trial of this matter.
16. 	As to those matters about which the Court grants an in limine motion, all parties,
their counsel, and witnesses are directed to refrain from making any mention through interrogation,
voir dire examination, opening statement, arguments, or otherwise, either directly or indirectly,
concerning the matters about which the Court grants an in limine motion, without first approaching
the bench and obtaining a ruling from the Court outside the presence of all prospective jurors and
the jurors ultimately selected to try this case. Further, all counsel are required to communicate this
Court’s rulings to their clients and witnesses who may be called to testify in this matter.
It is so ordered this 8th day of December, 2025.
____________________________________
Kristine G. Baker
Chief United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cr-00018-KGB Document 48 Filed 12/08/25 Page 5 of 5