U.S. v. Lentz
| Citation | 282 F.Supp.2d 399 |
| Decision Date | 14 May 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. CR.A. 01-150-A.,CR.A. 01-150-A. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff, v. Jay E. LENTZ, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Steve Mellin, Assistant United States Attorney, Patricia Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Alexandria, VA, for Plaintiff.
Frank Salvato, Michael Liberman, United States Public Defender's Office, Alexandria, VA, for Defendant.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on (1) the Government's Motion in Limine to Admit Out-of-Court Statements made by Doris Lentz as Non-Hearsay or as an Exception to the Hearsay Rule, and (2) the Government's Motion to Admit Evidence under Rule 404(b).1 Two issues are before the Court. The first issue before the Court is whether several statements made by the alleged decedent victim, Doris Lentz, to various individuals with reference to prior abuse by the Defendant, her fear of the Defendant, her plans surrounding the date of her disappearance; and writings documenting such items are admissible as non-hearsay or exceptions to the hearsay rule. The second issue before the Court is whether the Court should admit evidence of alleged bad acts under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence with regard to (1) Defendant's alleged prior abuse of Ms. Lentz; (2) his prior misconduct toward persons associated with Ms. Lentz; and (3) his harassment of other women. After a close examination of the facts and the submissions of the parties, the Court renders the following holding.
With respect to the admissibility of the hearsay statements, the Court holds as follows. First, none of the proffered hearsay statements by Ms. Lentz are admissible to show prior abuse. Second, the proffered hearsay statements showing fear are only admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule to show Ms. Lentz's emotional state of mind and not the factual occurrence engendering that state of mind. Third, most of the statements by Ms. Lentz of intent and belief surrounding the date of her disappearance are admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule to promote an inference that she did in fact engage in such conduct. Fourth, many of the documented statements are inadmissible because they either do not reflect any relevant state or mind or their probative value is substantially outweighed by prejudice to Defendant. Finally, neither the residual hearsay nor the forfeiture of wrongdoing exceptions to the hearsay rule apply to admit these statements. Accordingly, the Government's Motion in Limine to Admit Out-of-Court Statements made by Doris Lentz as Non-Hearsay or as an Exception to the Hearsay Rule is GRANTED in Part and DENIED in Part.
With respect to the admission of prior bad acts by Defendant, the Court holds as follows. First, all of the evidence of Defendant's alleged prior abuse of Ms. Lentz is admissible as prior bad acts, except for (a) the alleged serious physical abuse of Ms. Lentz resulting in black eyes and broken ribs; and (b) threats made by Defendant to Ms. Lentz prior to her disappearance. Second, all of the proposed acts of Defendant's alleged prior misconduct toward persons associated with Defendant's alleged harassment of other women is inadmissible as prior bad acts. Accordingly, the Government's Motion to Admit Evidence under Rule 404(b) is GRANTED in Part and DENIED in Part. A detailed rendition of the Court's reasoning is as follows.
Defendant Jay E. Lentz and Ms. Dorris Lentz were married in 1989. During their marriage they had a daughter, Julia. The couple subsequently separated in 1993. Ms. Lentz lived in Arlington, Virginia and Defendant lived in nearby Maryland. In the spring of 1996, the accused and Ms. Lentz were in the midst of a hotly contested divorce proceeding in Maryland. On April 22, 1996, the Government alleges that the Lentz's daughter was visiting her father in Maryland. Defendant was supposed to return the child to Ms. Lentz later that evening. On the day in question, Ms. Lentz told a friend and her co-workers she was going from her home in Virginia to pick up her daughter at Defendant's home in Maryland. Ms. Lentz did not pick up her daughter and has never been heard from again.
Ms. Lentz and Defendant were scheduled to appear in divorce court in Maryland the next day and Ms. Lentz did not appear. The divorce court was scheduled to consider financial issues at this proceeding. Several days after Ms. Lentz's disappearance, her car was found abandoned in Washington, D.C. The Government's theory of the case is that the accused kidnaped his wife by luring her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jensen
...most modern courts have held to this rule. See e.g. United States v. Houlihan, 92 F.3d 1271, 1278 (1st Cir.1996); United States v. Lentz, 282 F.Supp.2d 399, 426 (E.D.Va.2002). In other words, the forfeiture exception has been applied when an accused has made a witness unavailable, and when ......
-
People v. Giles
...v. Rouco, supra, 765 F.2d at pp. 993-995; United States v. Thevis, supra, 665 F.2d at pp. 627-633; but see United States v. Lentz (E.D.Va. 2002) 282 F.Supp.2d 399, 426-427 [rejecting application of forfeiture rule in murder trial where murder was done to procure witness's unavailability in ......
-
Gonzalez v. State
...from a witness or potential witness. Accepting Mr. Emery's position would allow him to do just that. Id. Compare United States v. Lentz, 282 F.Supp.2d 399 (E.D.Va.2002), in which the district court declined to apply the forfeiture rule to some out-of-court statements made by Ms. Lentz, the ......
-
State v. Mason
...whether the defendant caused the victim's death." Id. at 462, 654 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 677 N.E.2d 728 (footnote omitted). ¶ 67 United States v. Lentz, 282 F.Supp.2d 399 (2002), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds by 383 F.3d 191 (4th Cir.2004), presents facts similar to the case at bar.......
-
Preliminarily Guilty? Reflexive Confrontation Forfeiture
...at 359-68. 10. 554 U.S. 353 (2008). 11. Giles, 554 U.S. at 375 n.6 (plurality opinion). 12. Id. at 403 (Breyer, J., dissenting). 13. 282 F. Supp. 2d 399 (E.D. Va. 14. United States v. Lentz, 282 F. Supp. 2d 399, 426 (E.D. Va. 2002), aff'd on other grounds, United States v. Lentz, No. 02-19,......