United States v. WEBB
2:23-cr-00042
| W.D. Pa. | Nov 25, 2024Background
- Defendant Dante Webb filed 28 motions in limine; the government filed one.
- The case concerns alleged drug trafficking and firearm offenses occurring on June 3 and June 7, 2022, in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
- Key evidence at issue includes testimony about flight from law enforcement, prior drug activities, use of certain firearms, expert and lay witness testimony, and several references and phrases potentially prejudicial.
- Webb sought to exclude specific evidence, limit terminology, and bar certain witness testimony on relevance and prejudice grounds under various Federal Rules of Evidence.
- The government generally argues the evidence is relevant, non-prejudicial, and supports elements like knowledge, intent, and identity; it also seeks to preclude references to previously decided suppression issues at trial.
- The court issued an omnibus order largely denying Webb’s motions and denying the government’s motion, occasionally granting or partially granting when witness capacity or specific rule requirements warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Webb’s Argument | Gov’t Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reference to "Defendant" vs. "Accused" | Using "Defendant" is prejudicial; use "Accused" instead | "Defendant" is common; jury will receive instructions | Denied |
| Evidence of flight as consciousness of guilt | Unfairly prejudicial/confusing as to earlier counts | Flight evidences guilt for both incidents | Denied |
| Prior drug distribution evidence | Inadmissible 404(b)/unfair prejudice | Admissible for knowledge/intent; highly relevant | Denied |
| Testimony on witnesses’ backgrounds (education, military) | Not relevant, bolsters credibility | Relevant to credibility and perception | Denied |
| Testimony about "owe sheet" as lay opinion | Not allowed; requires expert | Appropriate for expert testimony | Granted in part |
| Reference to "County Crime Lab" | Prejudicial; implies guilt | Common shorthand; accurate description | Denied |
| Testimony about prior contacts with Webb | Suggests bad character; prejudicial | No intention to elicit such testimony | Granted |
| Testimony re: domestic violence/dispatch reason | Prejudicial, bad character | Limited, inevitable reference as context | Granted in part |
| Use of "ghost guns" / "AK" / high-caliber, full-auto | Prejudicial labels and connotations | Highly probative of charges/elements | Denied |
| Chain of custody and colored drugs evidence | Inconsistent descriptions; needs hearing | Sufficient evidence for jury; gaps go to weight | Denied |
| Expert testimony on qualifications (Springmeyer) | Irrelevant, prejudicial, wastes time | Relevant to qualifications as expert | Denied |
| Suppression issues before jury | Wants to impeach; not relitigate suppression | Such issues confuse jury; already decided | Denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Green, 617 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2010) (distinguishes intrinsic and extrinsic evidence in applying Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Repak, 852 F.3d 230 (3d Cir. 2017) (four-part test for admissibility under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Givan, 320 F.3d 452 (3d Cir. 2003) (knowledge and intent are valid non-propensity Rule 404(b) purposes)
- United States v. Womack, 55 F.4th 219 (3d Cir. 2022) (experts may opine on modus operandi and drug trade practices)
- United States v. Forrest, 434 F. Supp. 1131 (E.D. Pa. 1977), aff’d, 573 F.2d 1302 (3d Cir. 1978) (large drug quantities support intent to distribute)
- United States v. Wade, 451 F. App’x 173 (3d Cir. 2011) (limiting cross-exam on suppression issues appropriate)