United States v. Liu
3:05-cr-00085
M.D. La.Jan 6, 2011Background
- Liou is charged with conspiracy to steal Dow CPE trade secrets in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1832(a).
- The conspiracy allegedly included John Wheeler, HM, and Keith Stoecker, continuing until at least October 31, 2001.
- The Government alleges Liou attempted to sell stolen Dow CPE trade secrets to Nan Ya Plastics in 2003.
- The Government moves to admit evidence of Liou's Nan Ya negotiations (Doc. No. 92); Liou opposes (Doc. No. 120) and the Government replies (Doc. No. 131).
- The Court grants the motion, finding the Nan Ya negotiations admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
- The Court intends to give limiting instructions to minimize potential prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Nan Ya negotiations under Rule 404(b) | Government: evidence shows motive, opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge, absence of mistake. | Liou: evidence is improper propensity evidence and dissimilar to charged conduct. | Admissible under Rule 404(b). |
| Is the Nan Ya evidence intrinsic to the charged crimes? | Government contends 404(b) suffices; evidence tied to the fraud/enterprise. | Liou argues it is not intrinsic and should be treated under 404(b) only if appropriate. | Court need not decide intrinsic status because 404(b) admissibility is established. |
| Balance of probative value and undue prejudice | Evidence highly probative of defendant's intent and associations; prejudice manageable with limiting instructions. | Evidence could be highly prejudicial and misused to show character. | Probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; limiting instructions will minimize risk. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (two-step Rule 404(b) analysis for extrinsic acts)
- United States v. Garcia, 27 F.3d 1009 (5th Cir. 1994) (Rule 404(b) admissibility when probative and not unfairly prejudicial)
- United States v. Williams, 900 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1990) (standard for Rule 404(b) balancing and prejudice)
- United States v. Osum, 943 F.2d 1394 (5th Cir. 1991) (extrinsic acts admissible for intent and setup of charged crime)
- United States v. Roberts, 619 F.2d 379 (5th Cir. 1980) (intent and state-of-mind considerations in admissibility)
- United States v. Mares, 441 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2006) (subsequent acts evidence relevant when intent is at issue)