523 F. App'x 269
5th Cir.2013Background
- Marquez was convicted by a jury of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana.
- The district court sentenced him to a $5,000 fine and 78 months’ imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release.
- Marquez appeals, alleging the district court abused its discretion by denying a motion to strike testimony about non-custodial statements.
- Agent Sauceda testified about statements Marquez made before his arrest; the testimony related to the motion in limine and disclosure arguments.
- The district court refused to strike the testimony, citing general discovery orders and Rule 16 disclosure limits.
- The court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard with harmless-error review; contemporaneous objection was not made, potentially invoking plain error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of the motion to strike was an abuse of discretion | Marquez contends the limine denial required striking the testimony. | Sauceda's testimony about pre-arrest statements falls outside Rule 16 and discovery scope. | No abuse; district court did not err in declining to strike. |
| Whether the motion in limine was broad enough to require striking all testimony | Marquez's limine referenced Rule 16 and should have compelled broader disclosure/strike. | Limine was not broad enough to require striking all unfurnished testimony. | Limine was not so broad; no error in not striking. |
| What is the governing standard of review for the evidentiary ruling | Abuse-of-discretion review applies to denial of the evidentiary objection. | Even if plain error applies, the result is unchanged. | Abuse-of-discretion with harmless-error analysis; plain-error review possible if objections were not contemporaneously renewed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing evidentiary objections and harmless error)
- United States v. Crawley, 533 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2008) (plain error review in evidentiary context)
- United States v. Graves, 5 F.3d 1546 (5th Cir. 1993) (plain error review when objections are not renewed)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519 (5th Cir. 2008) (standard of review guidance)
- United States v. Tannehill, 49 F.3d 1049 (5th Cir. 1995) (plain error framework considerations)
- United States v. Fischel, 686 F.2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1982) (discovery limits in criminal cases)