United States v. Harp, 2:22-cr-00100

Samantha Harp, a correctional officer, was indicted for making a false statement to federal agents regarding alleged misconduct at a federal prison.
The government accused Harp of denying specific contacts and activities with an inmate’s family, which were contradicted by their evidence.
The case came before the court on the government’s motion in limine to preclude certain types of evidence and arguments before trial.
The six areas were: use of interview reports for impeachment, jury nullification arguments, references to presence/absence of government witnesses, references to sentencing or consequences, out-of-court statements by the defendant, and the affirmative defense of duress/justification/coercion.
Harp, through counsel, filed no opposition to these exclusions, agreeing to comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use of interview reports as impeachment	Such reports are not witnesses’ statements under law unless verbatim or adopted.	No opposition.	Excluded from use as impeachment material.
Jury nullification arguments	Defense cannot encourage the jury to disregard the law or its duty.	No opposition.	Excluded/prohibited.
Reference to presence/absence of government witnesses	Negative inferences about witness choices may confuse jury.	No opposition.	Excluded from argument/comment.
References to sentencing or collateral consequences	Jury should not consider or hear about penalties or consequences.	No opposition.	Excluded from evidence/argument.
Out-of-court statements by defendant	Such statements are inadmissible hearsay if offered for the truth.	No opposition.	Excluded unless ruling obtained.
Affirmative defense of duress/justification/coercion	No evidence such a defense is available here.	No opposition & none offered.	Excluded from trial.

United States v. Perez, 459 Fed. Appx. 191 (3d Cir. 2012) (relevance of evidence to charge)
United States v. Dvorin, 817 F.3d 438 (5th Cir. 2016) (relevance standards in criminal cases)
United States v. Hays, 872 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1989) (admissibility of relevant evidence)
United States v. Vincent, 648 F.2d 1046 (5th Cir. 1981) (evidence must relate to indictment)
United States v. Scarpa, 897 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1990) (limits on showing innocence via other acts)
United States v. Marrero, 904 F.2d 251 (5th Cir. 1990) (good conduct evidence excluded)
Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343 (1959) (limits on impeachment with agent reports)
Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. 35 (1975) (jury should not consider sentence)
Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573 (1994) (jury not to consider consequences of verdict)