Cervantes

United States v. Cervantes

Good Law
170 F. Supp. 3d 1226·2016 WL 1029585·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34916
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 15, 2016Case No.: 12-CR-0792 YGRCalifornia6,402 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rogers, J.

PREtrial Order No. 13 Regarding Rule 404 (b), H. Cervantes’s Motions in Li-mine Nos. 10 and 11, and Larez’s Motion in Limine No.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 827, 838, 839

Pending before the Court is Defendant Henry Cervantes’s (“H. Cervantes”) motion in limine number 10 to exclude noticed Rule 404(b) evidence (Docket No. 888), H. Cervantes’s motion in limine number 11 to exclude specified evidence as not relevant, or as hearsay, or as subject to exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 (Docket No. 839), and Alberto Larez’s (“Larez”) motion in limine to exclude noticed Rule 404(b) evidence (Docket No. 827). Based on the submissions of the parties, oral argument, and Good Cause showing, the Court Grants in Part and Denies in Part H. Cervantes’s motion to exclude noticed Rule 404(b) evidence (Docket No. 838); Denies Without Prejudice H. Cervantes’s remaining objections under Rules 401, 403, 801, 802, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as either lacking merit, premature, insufficiently specific, and/or overbroad (Docket Nos. 838, 839); and Denies Larez’s motion to exclude evidence of an assault in Red Bluff in July 2011 as to Rule 404(b) (Docket No. 827).

While the motions also raise…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.