DOCSLIB.ORG

Case 2:02-Cv-02104-AJS Document 103 Filed 08/26/05 Page 1 of 31

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Case 2:02-Cv-02104-AJS Document 103 Filed 08/26/05 Page 1 of 31 Case 2:02-cv-02104-AJS Document 103 Filed 08/26/05 Page 1 of 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHRISTIAN BOURIEZ, et al, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Civil Action No. 02-2104 ) ) Judge Arthur J. Schwab/ ) Magistrate Judge Sensenich CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM ORDER AMENDING MEMORANDUM ORDER WHICH WAS DATED JULY 27, 2005 (DOCKET # 95) Defendant filed objections to the Memorandum Order dated July 27, 2005. (Doc. #99). Oral arguments were heard on August 18, 2005. After oral argument, this Amended Order is entered, finding that portions of exhibits 11 and 41 are admissible. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike Filings in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and a Brief in Support of the Motion on May 27, 2005. (Doc. # 83 and 84). Defendant filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Filings in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment in response and a brief on June 9, 2005. (Doc. # 85 and 86). Plaintiffs replied on July 1, 2005. (Doc #91). The Court entered a Memorandum Order on July 27, 2005 which granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike. (Doc. # 97). Case 2:02-cv-02104-AJS Document 103 Filed 08/26/05 Page 2 of 31 Objections were filed by Defendant, and Plaintiffs replied. (Docs. #99, 101). The Court added the issues presented in the objections to oral argument on the Motion for Summary Judgment, which was held on August 18, 2005. (See Doc. # 102). For clarity and ease of review, the following is a replica of the original Memorandum Order issued on July 27, 2005, except for two minor adjustments reflecting the admissibility in part of exhibit 11 and supplemental exhibit 41 based upon an additional showing by Defendant in its Objections which overcome Plaintiffs’ hearsay objections. Additionally, this memorandum will specifically discuss Defendant’s objections. Defendant directed the Court’s attention to an error in striking supplemental exhibit number 41 in part, due to the fact that portions of that document contain statements made by the Plaintiff, which qualify as a party opponent admission. See FED.R.EVID. 801(d)(2)(A). Second, one sentence in exhibit 11 was argued to be a direction which was submitted not for the truth of the matter asserted, but for the fact that authorization was given. Therefore, the sentence in exhibit 11 which authorizes Marc Portnoff to proceed is admissible non-hearsay and the portions of exhibit 41 which were authored by Plaintiff are admissible. Defendant also argue that exhibit 44 is admissible as a statement by an agent of a party opponent. Plaintiffs counter that expert witnesses can not be agents, and that Defendant 2 Case 2:02-cv-02104-AJS Document 103 Filed 08/26/05 Page 3 of 31 failed to establish that Saglio was an agent of Plaintiffs. Defendant did not counter Plaintiffs’ argument. Plaintiffs’ arguments are well taken, and therefore, exhibit 44 will not be admitted. Otherwise, this Amended Memorandum Order is identical to the original Order issued July 27, 2005.1 I. Background Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike challenges the admissibility of twenty-nine documents contained in Defendant’s Appendix in support of its Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment,2 all substantive references to the report of Dr. Kingston contained in Defendant’s brief, and Defendant’s use of general lack of knowledge denials in its Responsive Concise Statement of Material Facts.3 Plaintiffs’ primary objection to Defendant’s filings was based upon Defendant’s failure to provide an affidavit or deposition testimony from the document’s author to verify the authenticity of the documents. Plaintiffs’ second objection challenges hearsay 1 Some typographical corrections have been made and a section of the original Memorandum Order that dealt with the fact that the expert report of Dr. Kingston was not included in the appendix, could not be located by the court, has been removed. Defendant has identified the location of the report, and therefore, the prior discussion is moot. 2 (Doc. #82) Exhibit numbers 6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23-31, 39, 41, 44, 56-61, 63, 66, and 68. 3 (Doc. # 81). 3 Case 2:02-cv-02104-AJS Document 103 Filed 08/26/05 Page 4 of 31 statements in the documents, and in some instances hearsay within hearsay. Plaintiffs’ third objection challenges Defendant’s use of general lack of knowledge denials as a violation of Local Rules. Defendant responded to Plaintiffs’ Motion by asserting that it received most of the challenged documents from Plaintiff and therefore they do not require authentication.4 The remaining exhibits were allegedly authenticated by deposition testimony,5 by distinctive characteristics or surrounding circumstances,6 or affidavits.7 Further, Defendant argues that the hearsay rule does not prohibit the consideration of such evidence on summary judgment if it could be admissible at trial. Plaintiffs’ Reply argues that Defendant’s Response does not provide any basis for admissibility of the challenged documents, because authentication is only a preliminary consideration. Plaintiffs assert that hearsay bars the admission of the content of the challenged documents, and that some 4 Exhibit numbers 8, 11, 15, 17, 20, 23, 25-31, 39, 41, 44, 57-61, 63, and 68. 5 Exhibits 12 and 66. 6 Exhibits 6, 19, 24 and 56. Defendant also stated that it will “secure affidavits” for these documents in the interest of judicial economy. However, these affidavits were not produced. 7 Exhibits 11, 23 and the expert report of Dr. Kingston. Defendant filed with its Response to the Motion to Strike the affidavits of Dr. Kingston and Mr. Portnoff. 4 Case 2:02-cv-02104-AJS Document 103 Filed 08/26/05 Page 5 of 31 documents contain multiple layers of hearsay. Plaintiffs also challenge Defendant’s failure to address the issue of general lack of knowledge denials in its Response, and request that all facts which were improperly denied by Defendant be treated as admissions that the fact is not disputed. III. Standard Summary judgment may be granted against a party who fails to adduce facts sufficient to establish the existence of any element essential to that party’s case, and for which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying evidence which demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, but once that burden has been met, the nonmoving party must set forth “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” or the factual record will be taken as presented by the moving party and judgment will be entered as a matter of law. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Corp. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The Motion to Strike challenges the admissibility of the documents relied upon in the Brief in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, and the pleading of facts in the responsive concise statement. When the admissibility of evidence is challenged, the party relying on the evidence must demonstrate 5 Case 2:02-cv-02104-AJS Document 103 Filed 08/26/05 Page 6 of 31 that such evidence is capable of admission at trial before it can be considered on summary judgment. However, [w]e do not mean that the nonmoving party must produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial in order to avoid summary judgment. Obviously Rule 56 does not require the nonmoving party to depose her own witnesses. Rule 56(e) permits a proper summary judgment motion to be opposed by any materials listed in Rule 56(c), except the mere pleadings themselves, and it is from this list that one would normally expect the nonmoving party to make the showing ... [that specific facts show that there is a genuine issue for trial]. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986)), see also Lin v. Rohm and Haas Co., 293 F.Supp.2d 505, 511 (E.D.Pa. 2003). Although evidence may be considered in a form which is inadmissible at trial, the content of the evidence must be capable of admission at trial. It is clear that the party offering the evidence must demonstrate that it could satisfy the applicable admissibility requirements at trial before the evidence may be used on summary judgment. See Robinson v. Hartzell Propeller Inc., 326 F.Supp.2d 631 (E.D.Pa. 2004), and Henry v. Colonial Baking Co. of Dothan, 952 F.Supp. 744, 750 (M.D.Ala. 1996). III. Objections based upon Local Rules The Local Rules require each party to submit a concise statement of undisputed material facts supported by “a particular 6 Case 2:02-cv-02104-AJS Document 103 Filed 08/26/05 Page 7 of 31 pleading, deposition, answer to interrogatory, admission on file or other part of the record supporting the party’s statement, acceptance or denial of the material fact.” W.D. PA. R. 56.1 (B)(1) (2005). Documents referred to in the concise statement must be included in an appendix. Id. at (B)(3). Additionally, by court order, the parties in this case were required to submit a joint statement of material fact.8 (Doc. # 79, 87 and 91). The purpose of Local Rule 56.1 is to aid the court in deciding a motion for summary judgment by identifying material facts and supporting documentation to determine whether or not the fact is disputed. See W.D. PA. R. 56.1 (2005). In support of this purpose, the Local Rules expressly require that the party opposing a motion for summary judgment file a responsive concise statement of material facts which specifies whether the other party’s statement of facts is admitted or denied, and sets forth in separately numbered paragraphs, the basis for such denial with citation to the record.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Michigan Rules of Evidence Table of Contents
    Michigan Rules of Evidence Table of Contents RULES 101–106 .......................................................................................................... 4 Rule 101. Scope. ....................................................................................................... 4 Rule 102. Purpose. ................................................................................................... 4 Rule 103. Rulings on Evidence. ............................................................................... 4 Rule 104. Preliminary Questions. ........................................................................... 5 Rule 105. Limited Admissibility. ............................................................................. 5 Rule 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements. ................. 5 RULES 201–202 .......................................................................................................... 5 Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts. .................................................... 5 Rule 202. Judicial Notice of Law. ............................................................................ 6 RULES 301–302 .......................................................................................................... 6 Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings. ................................... 6 Rule 302. Presumptions in Criminal Cases. ........................................................... 6 RULES 401–411 .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Shadow Rules of Joinder
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 2012 The hS adow Rules of Joinder Robin Effron Brooklyn Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation 100 Geo. L. J. 759 (2011-2012) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. The Shadow Rules of Joinder ROBIN J. EFFRON* The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide litigants with procedural devices for joining claims and parties. Several of these rules demand that the claims or parties share a baseline of commonality, either in the form of the same "transactionor occurrence" or a "common question of law or fact." Both phrases have proved to be notoriously tricky in application.Commentators from the academy and the judiciary have attributed these difficulties to the context- specific and discretionary nature of the rules. This Article challenges that wisdom by suggesting that the doctrinal confu- sion can be attributed to deeper theoretical divisions in the judiciary, particu- larly with regardto the role of the ontological categories of "fact" and "law." These theoretical divisions have led lower courtjudges to craft shadow rules of joinder "Redescription" is the rule by which judges utilize a perceived law-fact distinction to characterizea set of facts as falling inside or outside a definition of commonality. "Impliedpredominance" is the rule in which judges have taken the Rule 23(b)(3) class action standard that common questions predominate over individual issues and applied it to other rules of joinder that do not have this express requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • Trial Process in Virginia
    te Trial Process In Virginia A Litigation Boutique THE TRIAL PROCESS IN VIRGINIA table of contents Overview . .3 Significant .MOtiOnS .in .virginia . .4 . Plea .in .Bar . .4 . DeMurrer. .5 . craving .Oyer . .5 Voir .Dire . anD .Jury .SelectiOn .in .virginia . .6 OPening .StateMent . .8 the .receiPt .Of .e viDence . .10 MOtiOnS .tO .Strike . the .eviDence . .12 crOSS-exaMinatiOn . .14 clOSing .arguMent. .15 Jury .inStructiOnS . .17 Making .a .recOrD .fOr .aPP eal . .17 tiMe .liMitS .fOr .nO ting .anD .Perfecting . an .aPPeal . .18 key .tiMe .liMit S .fOr . the .SuPreMe .cOurt .Of .virginia . .19 THE TRIAL PROCESS IN VIRGINIA overview The trial of a civil case in Virginia takes most of its central features from the English court system that was introduced into the “Virginia Colony” in the early 1600s. The core principles of confrontation, the right to a trial by one’s peers, hearsay principles and many other doctrines had already been originated, extensively debated and refined in English courts and Inns of Court long before the first gavel fell in a Virginia case. It is clearly a privilege to practice law in the historically important court system of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and everyone who “passes the bar” and earns the right to sit inside the well of the court literally follows in the footsteps of such groundbreaking pioneers as Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, George Wythe, John Marshall, Lewis Powell and Oliver Hill. However, this booklet is not designed to address either the history or the policy of the law, or to discuss the contributions of these and other legal giants whose legacy is the living system that we enjoy today as professional attorneys.
    [Show full text]
  • Admissible Evidence for Summary Judgment
    Admissible Evidence For Summary Judgment Ribbony Wolfie sometimes deal his hydrometry predictably and implode so humblingly! Edgier and planktonic Thorndike chirruping almost jocularly, though mishandlesMattias centralised unwontedly. his misunderstanding syncs. Devin is splendorous and premix communicatively as heteropolar Rodolph attaints impartibly and In the Penn case, summary judgment was appropriate. Although judicial admissions are usually conclusive, because it could not resolve the issue without further development of the record. The letter was deprived of evidence for consistency and for abuse. A forward for summary judgment may entertain be filed A rug any coincidence is. It should be authenticated, evidence for a signal of a potent litigation involved in which are not. Civil service Rule 56 Summary judgment Massgov. The admission is for admissions which facts can make summary judgment for which ultimately affirmed a civ pro quiz ebook! Analysis of many evidence review summary judgment mo- tions3 and to streamline the. The admissibility of hearsay evidence provided a motion of summary judgment. In evidence for admissions. An oral statement by counsel in the singular action neither a binding judicial admission if the statement was an unambiguous concession of a ground then at bustle and sister not made improvidently or unguardedly. Thus, consideration, no copy of authority transcript was attached. In law of summary judgment is a judgment entered by important court for bounce party and protect another. One party is admissible form for admissions are not admissibility into or motive. Between a Celotex-type and a traditional motion this summary judgment as that distinction. For example, the moving party may obtain summary judgment by showing that the opposing party has no evidence or that its evidence is insufficient to meet its burden at trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Sheet No. 5 Discovery
    U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Information Sheet No. 5 Discovery Purpose. The purpose of this information sheet is to provide general guidance and background information. It does not represent an official statement approved by the Board itself, and is not intended to provide legal counsel or to be cited as legal authority. Instead, it is intended only to help the public become familiar with the MSPB and its procedures. In all instances, however, the Board’s regulations and current case law control with respect to the matters discussed here. What is discovery? Discovery is the procedure by which you may ask questions, or obtain documents or answers from the opposing party or third parties in order to "discover" information that is calculated to lead the parties to find admissible evidence. How does discovery work? A party must make its first discovery request within 30 days following the date of the Board's Acknowledgment Order in the case. Otherwise, the request will be considered untimely (late), and the other party may be excused from having to answer it. Following receipt of a discovery request, a party must respond to it within 20 days after the date of service. If the response is inadequate, or if the discovery request is ignored, the party that made the discovery request may file a "Motion to Compel Discovery" with the administrative judge (AJ). A Motion to Compel Discovery must be filed within 10 days after the objection or nonconforming response is served, or within 10 days after the time limit for response has expired.
    [Show full text]
  • Drafting and Issuing Discovery Subpoenas: Washington, Practical Law State Q&A
    Drafting and Issuing Discovery Subpoenas: Washington, Practical Law State Q&A... Drafting and Issuing Discovery Subpoenas: Washington by John S. Devlin III and Bryan Taylor, Lane Powell PC, with Practical Law Litigation Law stated as of 18 Nov 2019 • United States, Washington A Q&A guide to drafting, issuing, serving, and enforcing a discovery subpoena in a Washington civil proceeding. This Q&A addresses the state statutes and rules governing discovery subpoenas, the types of discovery subpoenas available, the requirements for drafting and serving a discovery subpoena, and the methods of enforcing a discovery subpoena. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Drafting and Issuing Discovery Subpoenas: State Q&A Tool). Overview of Discovery Subpoenas Drafting a Discovery Subpoena Serving a Discovery Subpoena Witness Fees Enforcing a Discovery Subpoena Appealing a Court Decision on a Discovery Subpoena Overview of Discovery Subpoenas 1. What are the laws or rules in your jurisdiction that generally govern subpoenas to non-party witnesses in discovery? The primary body of law governing subpoenas in Washington is the Washington Superior Court Civil Rules. The rules relating to subpoenas are: • Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 30 (oral depositions, subpoenas for depositions). • Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 31 (written depositions, subpoenas for depositions). • Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 37 (motions to compel and sanctions). • Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 45 (subpoenas generally). © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Drafting and Issuing Discovery Subpoenas: Washington, Practical Law State Q&A... The following provisions of the Washington Revised Code also govern subpoenas: • RCW 2.43.010 to 2.43.090 (providing for interpreters for non-English speaking persons served with subpoenas).
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Rules of Evidence
    OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101 Scope of rules: applicability; privileges; exceptions 102 Purpose and construction; supplementary principles 103 Rulings on evidence 104 Preliminary questions 105 Limited admissibility 106 Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements Article II JUDICIAL NOTICE 201 Judicial notice of adjudicative facts Article III PRESUMPTIONS 301 Presumptions in general in civil actions and proceedings 302 [Reserved] Article IV RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS 401 Definition of “relevant evidence” 402 Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible 403 Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or undue delay 404 Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes 405 Methods of proving character 406 Habit; routine practice 407 Subsequent remedial measures 408 Compromise and offers to compromise 409 Payment of medical and similar expenses 410 Inadmissibility of pleas, offers of pleas, and related statements 411 Liability insurance Article V PRIVILEGES 501 General rule Article VI WITNESS 601 General rule of competency 602 Lack of personal knowledge 603 Oath or affirmation Rule 604 Interpreters 605 Competency of judge as witness 606 Competency of juror as witness 607 Impeachment 608 Evidence of character and conduct of witness 609 Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime 610 Religious beliefs or opinions 611 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation 612 Writing used to refresh memory 613 Impeachment by self-contradiction
    [Show full text]
  • Interpretation of Words and the Parol Evidence Rule Arthur L
    Cornell Law Review Volume 50 Article 3 Issue 2 Winter 1965 Interpretation of Words and the Parol Evidence Rule Arthur L. Corbin Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Arthur L. Corbin, Interpretation of Words and the Parol Evidence Rule , 50 Cornell L. Rev. 161 (1965) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol50/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE INTERPRETATION OF WORDS AND THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE* Arthur L. Corbint GROWTH OF THE LAW, IN SPITE OF LONG REPETITION OF FORMALISTic RULES At an earlier date, this author warned that "in advising clients and in predicting court decisions, it must always be borne in mind that the assumption of uniformity and certainty in the meaning of language, however erroneous, has been made so often and so long that it will be repeated many times in the future."1 This prediction has been fully borne out in the court opinions that have been published in the fourteen years since it was made. It is still being said, sometimes as the ratio decidendi but more often as a dictum representing established law, that extrinsic evidence is not admissible to aid the court in the interpretation of a written contract (an integration) if the written words are them- selves plain and clear and unambiguous.
    [Show full text]
  • EVIDENCE 1. Discuss Whether Bob's Statements to Attorney 1
    GRADER’S GUIDE *** QUESTION NO. 1 *** SUBJECT: EVIDENCE 1. Discuss whether Bob’s statements to Attorney 1 will be protected by the rules of attorney/client privilege. 25% “A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client (1) between the client . and the client’s lawyer.” Evidence Rule 503(b). A communication is confidential if not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those to whom disclosure is in furtherance of the rendition of professional legal services. Evidence Rule 503(a)(5). For purposes of the rule, a client is a person “who is rendered professional legal services by a lawyer, or who consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional legal services.” Evidence Rule 503(a)(1). Finally, Evidence Rule 510 mandates that a person who controls a privilege against disclosure waives the privilege if the person “voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant party of the matter or communication.” The party asserting the privilege bears the burden of proving that the contested communication is protected by the privilege. See, e.g., Plate v. State, 925 P.2d 1057, 1066 (Alaska App. 1996) (concerning privileged communications to clergymen). As the Commentary to Evidence Rule 510 notes, [t]he central purpose of most privileges is the promotion of some interest or relationship by endowing it with a supporting secrecy or confidentiality. It is evident that the privilege should terminate when the holder by his own act destroys this confidentiality.
    [Show full text]
  • Monday, April 19, 2021 AMADOR SUPERIOR COURT LAW AND
    AMADOR SUPERIOR COURT LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS Monday, April 19, 2021 TO REQUEST A HEARING ON ANY MATTER ON THIS CALENDAR, YOU MUST CALL THE COURT AT (209) 257-2692 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY PRECEDING THE HEARING. NOTICE OF THE INTENTION TO APPEAR MUST ALSO BE GIVEN TO ALL OTHER PARTIES. IF THE CLERK IS NOT NOTIFIED OF A PARTY’S INTENTION TO APPEAR, THERE WILL BE NO HEARING AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER NOTICE OF THE COURT’S RULING WILL BE PROVIDED. 19-CVC-11140 LAFRANK, ERICA VS. ATT CORP MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s Motion for Filing of First Amended Complaint is DENIED. CRC 3.1324(b) provides, in relevant part, “A motion to amend a pleading for trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration and that declaration must specify (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegation were discovered; and, (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier”. (CRC 3.1324(b)(3) and (4).)(Emphasis added.) Plaintiff’s supporting declaration indicates Plaintiff completed the deposition of Defendant LEITING on June 16, 2020 and that such deposition was delayed by the Covid-19 crisis. (Decl. Lally ¶ 16.) Presumably, the June 16, 2020 date is when the facts giving rise to the amended allegation were discovered, but that is not clear from the declaration. Further, Plaintiff gives no explanation as to why the request for amendment was not made sooner , as the instant motion was not filed until April 9, 2021, nearly ten (10) months after LEITING’s deposition.
    [Show full text]
  • 17-05-12-CR16-001 (Commonwealth V. Aldan)
    FOR PUBLICATION ? I 'f I � r,l t 5/ 1 -"\1 2 �i ___� 3 4 5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE 6 COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 7 COMMONWEALTH OF THE ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 16-0011 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS ) 8 ) ) Plaintiff, ) 9 ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S v. ) MOTION IN LIMINE 10 ) ) 11 JOHN SANTOS ALDAN ) ) 12 Defendant. ) ) 13 ) ------------------------------- ) 14 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 This matter came before the Court on April 24, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 217A on 17 Defendant's Notice of Motion, Motion, and Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine and for a 18 Daubert Hearing ("Defendant's Motion in Limine").) Defendant John Santos Aldan ("Defendant") 19 appeared under the custody of Department of Corrections ("DOC") and was represented by 20 Assistant Public Defender Cindy Nesbit. Chief Public Defender Douglas Hartig was also present. 21 The Commonwealth was represented by Assistant Attorney General Teri Tenorio. 22 Based on a review of the parties' filings, oral arguments and applicable law, the Court 23 hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion in Limine. 24 III 25 26 I The motion hearing concluded on April 25, 2017. II. BACKGROUND 2 In this matter, the Commonwealth filed an Information charging Defendant with one count 3 of Disturbing the Peace, one count of Assault & Battery, and one count of Sexual Assault in the 4 First Degree. The circumstances surrounding the instant motion began in February of 2016. 5 On February 8, 2016, a sexual assault examination was performed on R.S., the alleged 6 victim, after claims that Defendant drove her to a remote jungle area and forcibly penetrated her 7 vagina with his penis.
    [Show full text]
  • DNA Fingerprinting: a Guide to Admissibility and Use
    Missouri Law Review Volume 57 Issue 2 Spring 1992 Article 9 Spring 1992 DNA Fingerprinting: A Guide to Admissibility and Use Ricardo Fontg Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ricardo Fontg, DNA Fingerprinting: A Guide to Admissibility and Use, 57 MO. L. REV. (1992) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol57/iss2/9 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Fontg: Fontg: DNA Fingerprinting Comment DNA Fingerprinting: A Guide to Admissibility and Use I. INTRODUCTION Forensic scientists have long hoped for the ability "to identify the origin of blood and body-fluid stains with the same degree of certainty as finger- prints."' Recent advances in recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid ("DNA") research offer scientists the necessary technology. Consequently, DNA technology now provides the judicial system with a powerful new test to identify criminal suspects and to trace paternity. Every individual, except an identical twin, possesses a unique genetic "blueprint" known as DNA. DNA is found in every chromosome of every cell in the human body; thus, an individual's blood, semen, skin, and hair can provide virtual positive identification of that person through his or her DNA.2 Because of this unique pattern, scientists can use DNA tests to identify individuals much like criminologists use fingerprints to identify individuals.
    [Show full text]