United States v. Larkin
2:12-cr-00319
D. Nev.Mar 8, 2017Background
- Maria Larkin is charged by second superseding indictment with one count of tax evasion (willful attempted evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201) based on alleged concealment of funds, nominee transactions, cash dealings, and false information to the IRS. Trial scheduled for March 13, 2017.
- Government filed a motion in limine seeking (1) admission of summary charts under FRE 1006, (2) preclusion of lay opinion testimony about defendant’s mental state, (3) preclusion of evidence or argument about the government’s motive for prosecution, and (4) preclusion of improper impeachment questioning/evidence on cross-examination.
- Defendant opposed, arguing the government’s requests were nonspecific, premature, and overly broad, and asserting her right to challenge government witnesses and evidence.
- The court evaluated admissibility under FRE 1006, FRE 701/704, and relevance/403 balancing, noting the district court’s broad discretion on in limine rulings and that such rulings are subject to change at trial.
- Rulings: the court granted admission of summary charts subject to proper foundation and availability of underlying documents; denied the blanket preclusion of lay testimony about mental state without further detail; granted exclusion of evidence about the government’s motive for prosecution (as irrelevant); and denied the motion concerning improper impeachment as overly general.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of summary charts (FRE 1006) | Charts will help jury digest voluminous financial/tax records; witness will lay foundation and underlying records will be admitted | Government’s request is nonspecific; failed to identify charts or summarized evidence | GRANTED subject to proper foundation and making originals available |
| Lay witness opinion on defendant’s mental state (FRE 701/704) | Such opinions would be speculative, not rationally based or helpful; intent is jury question; expert rule on mental-state opinions supports exclusion | Motion is overbroad and lacks binding authority; insufficient specificity to preclude | DENIED as premature; court will rule at trial on admissibility |
| Evidence/argument about government’s motive for prosecution | Motives of government agents are irrelevant to defendant’s factual guilt; risk of confusion/prejudice | Defendant has right to challenge witnesses and evidence; government cited no binding support | GRANTED — evidence of government’s motive to prosecute excluded as irrelevant |
| Preclusion of improper impeachment questioning/evidence | Requests restate evidentiary rules to prevent improper cross-examination | Defense says request is generic and unnecessary | DENIED as generalized; court expects normal evidentiary objections at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (in limine rulings subject to change during trial)
- Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (in limine rulings not binding and may be revisited)
- United States v. Rizk, 660 F.3d 1125 (requirements for Rule 1006 summaries)
- Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494 (availability and admissibility prerequisites for summaries)
- United States v. Voorhies, 658 F.2d 710 (willfulness can be shown by conduct intended to mislead or conceal)
- United States v. Corona, [citation="359 F. App'x 848"] (distinguishing lay vs. expert opinion testimony)
- United States v. Kayser, 488 F.3d 1070 (elements of attempted income tax evasion)
- Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492 (concealment/misleading conduct as evidence of willfulness)