USA v. Newman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CR-25-113-RAW
)
RAMONE ANTUANE NEWMAN, )
)
)
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Two motions in limine of the defendant remain pending in this case.
In the first (#55), defendant seeks to exclude prior convictions that might
be used for impeachment purposes. At the pretrial conference, the
suggestion was made (and adopted by the court) that a ruling could be
deferred until defendant made a decision to testify at trial. In the second
(#76), defendant sought to exclude three specific items of evidence.
First, defendant seeks to exclude marijuana found in defendant’s
vehicle after his arrest. The government responded that it would not seek
to introduce the marijuana, but rather the fact that defendant was asked
if there was anything in the vehicle that law enforcement “needed to know
about” and he denied that there was. In a recent order (#84) the court
granted defendant’s motion to suppress regarding post-arrest statements
6:25-cr-00113-RAW Document 86 Filed in ED/OK on 02/10/26 Page 1 of 3

because the questions were asked without being preceded by a Miranda
warning. Accordingly, the motion is moot in this regard – the purported
denial will not be admitted.
Second, the defendant seeks to exclude any assertion that the
defendant had a quantity of cash in the vehicle. At the pretrial
conference, the government disavowed any intention of introducing such
evidence in its case in chief. Therefore, the motion is granted in this
regard, but the issue may be revisited should the defendant testify.
Finally, the defendant seeks to exclude any statements made by
defendant’s girlfriend during a jail phone call as hearsay. Specifically, in
one call (the court has listened to the recording thereof), defendant’s
girlfriend reads a list of offenses with which the defendant has been
charged. In regard to one of the series, she states it involves the “gun
you threw out of the f**king window.” After her recitation of all the
charges, defendant only responds “wow.”
The government seeks admission. A statement made by someone
else may be treated as a statement of the party if the party adopts the
statement. See Rule 801(d)(2)(B) F.R.Evid. “A party may manifest
adoption of a statement in any number of ways, including through words,
conduct, or silence.” United States v. Robinson, 275 F.3d 371, 383 (4th
2
6:25-cr-00113-RAW Document 86 Filed in ED/OK on 02/10/26 Page 2 of 3

Cir.2001). The government relies upon defendant’s silence in this
instance.
Again, the motion will be granted. “A trial court should be most
reluctant to credit mere silence – inherently ambiguous – as ‘conduct’
sufficient for adoption of an inculpatory statement.” United States v.
Coppola, 526 F.3d 764, 769 n.2 (10th Cir.1975). “The Advisory Committee
also cautions against the use of silence, particularly in the criminal
context, noting that the inference of guilt from the failure to deny an
accusation is ‘a fairly weak one.’” 30B Wright & Belllin, Federal Practice
and Procedure, §6774 at 190 (2017 ed.)(footnote omitted).
It is the order of the court that the defendant’s second motion in
limine (#76) is hereby granted in part and deemed moot in part.
ORDERED THIS 10th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026.
______________________________________
RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
6:25-cr-00113-RAW Document 86 Filed in ED/OK on 02/10/26 Page 3 of 3