589 F.Supp.3d 1031
D. Minnesota2022Background
- Aaron Broussard is charged in a superseding 17‑count indictment alleging conspiracy and multiple counts of importation, possession with intent to distribute, and distribution of fentanyl (including counts alleging death or serious bodily injury). Several counts were previously dismissed/renumbered.
- Broussard contends he only intended to distribute 4‑FA (an alleged analogue) and therefore lacked the requisite intent to distribute a controlled substance; he raises related challenges (prosecutorial misconduct, constructive amendment, selective prosecution, outrageous government conduct). The Court previously rejected his legal theory that intent to distribute an analogue cannot support conviction if an actual controlled substance was distributed.
- Broussard filed three motions in limine seeking to exclude: (1) evidence characterizing 4‑FA as an analogue or illegal drug; (2) evidence of uncharged conduct/uncharged victims, USPS shipping records, and inflammatory victim testimony/photos; and (3) various items including crime‑scene/victim photos, iPhone data, Victim G’s statement, photos of his grandmother’s home, summary charts, and internet archive evidence.
- The Government seeks to admit evidence that 4‑FA is similar to controlled substances and that Broussard intended it for human consumption under the Analogue Act; it also intends to introduce testimony from Victims C and M, USPS records, limited “spark of life” evidence, crime‑scene/examiner photos as needed, and electronic evidence from Broussard’s iPhone.
- The Court denied all three motions in limine (some denials without prejudice), holding: 4‑FA evidence is relevant under McFadden/Analogue Act frameworks; Victims C and M are intrinsic witnesses whose evidence completes the story; USPS records may be admitted as business records if properly authenticated; limited victim photographs and other contested evidence are admissible subject to trial‑level Rule 403/Confrontation/ authentication objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence about 4‑FA (analogue) | Govt: evidence about 4‑FA’s similarity/effects is relevant to prove Analogue Act knowledge or intent to distribute | Broussard: describing 4‑FA as an analogue/controlled substance will constructively amend the indictment and is prejudicial | Denied — testimony/evidence about 4‑FA is relevant under McFadden; analogue intent can support conviction even if actual controlled substance was distributed |
| Evidence from victims not named in indictment (Victims C & M) | Govt: testimony is intrinsic and inextricably intertwined with charged conduct | Broussard: seeks exclusion as uncharged conduct/unduly prejudicial | Denied — Victims C and M provide intrinsic evidence that completes the story of charged distributions |
| USPS shipping records admissibility/authentication | Govt: business records admissible under FRE 803(6) if authenticated | Broussard: records are hearsay, created for trial, irrelevant, prejudicial | Denied — records appear to be ordinary business records; admissible if properly authenticated (custodian or Rule 902 certification); trial objections preserved |
| “Spark of life” and victim/crime‑scene photos | Govt: limited photos/family testimony allowed to show victims as living persons and to support causation | Broussard: such evidence will inflame jury and is unfairly prejudicial | Denied (without prejudice) — limited spark‑of‑life photos and examiner photos allowed as relevant; Rule 403 objections may be raised at trial |
| Electronic evidence (iPhone texts, searches, photos; internet archive) | Govt: phone data and archived internet pages relevant to intent, sales, and knowledge; admissible with proper foundation/authentication | Broussard: irrelevant, prejudicial, lacks authentication | Denied — evidence is relevant; admissibility/authentication and Rule 403 issues reserved for trial |
| Victim G’s out‑of‑court statement / Confrontation Clause | Govt: may offer statement subject to hearsay/confrontation analysis | Broussard: statement is hearsay and violates Sixth Amendment confrontation rights | Denied (without prejudice) — Confrontation/hearsay foundation must be addressed at trial; testimonial status and use for truth are determinative |
Key Cases Cited
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (pretrial exclusion of prejudicial evidence; motions in limine concept)
- McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (application of the Analogue Act; mens rea standards for analogues)
- United States v. McKinney, 79 F.3d 105 (admission of expert/user testimony on analogues' similarity and effects)
- United States v. Thomas, 760 F.3d 879 (drug evidence constituting intrinsic evidence to conspiracy)
- United States v. Guzman, 926 F.3d 991 (evidence completing the story intrinsic to charged conspiracy)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause governs testimonial out‑of‑court statements)
- United States v. Jenkins, 345 F.3d 928 (postal records admissible as business records under FRE 803(6))
- United States v. Franks, 939 F.2d 600 (admission of commercial carrier records as business records)
- Residential Funding Co. v. Terrace Mortg. Co., 725 F.3d 910 (business‑records admissibility principles under Rule 803(6))
- United States v. Gasperini, 894 F.3d 482 (admission of internet archive evidence with proper foundation)
- United States v. Bansal, 663 F.3d 634 (internet evidence admissibility when properly authenticated)