United States v. Watts, 10–CR–627 (KAM).

Citation934 F.Supp.2d 451
Decision Date22 March 2013
Docket NumberNo. 10–CR–627 (KAM).,10–CR–627 (KAM).
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. Rodney WATTS, Defendant.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Brian D. Morris, David Carey Woll, James G. McGovern, Michael Warren, Michael Lloyd Yaeger, United States Attorney's Office, Brooklyn, NY, for United States of America.

Marion Bachrach, Depetris & Bachrach, LLP, Joyce C. London, Law Office of Joyce London, New York, NY, for Rodney Watts.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MATSUMOTO, District Judge.

The government charges defendant Rodney Watts (Mr. Watts) with various counts of Bank Fraud, Making a False Statement, and Conspiracy to Commit Bank, Mail, and Wire Fraud. Presently before the court are the government's and Mr. Watts' respective pretrial requests and motions in limine to preclude evidence at trial pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence. For the reasons discussed below, the court hereby grants in part and denies in part the government's and Mr. Watts' respective motions in limine and other pretrial motions and requests.

BACKGROUND

Familiarity with the facts and prior opinions of this court in this matter is presumed and only the background relevant to these motions is set forth below.

I. The Charges Against Mr. Watts

Mr. Watts is charged in the first four counts of a five-count second superseding indictment.1 ( See ECF No. 295, Superseding Indictment (“S–2 Indictment”).) Count One charges Mr. Watts with Conspiracy to Commit Bank, Mail, and Wire Fraud in or about and between January 2007 and July 2010 in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 3551 et seq. ( Id. ¶¶ 18–19.) Count Two charges Mr. Watts with Bank Fraud in or about and between January 2007 and July 2010 in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1344, 3551 et seq. ( Id. ¶¶ 20–21.) Count Three charges Mr. Watts with Making a False Statement on or about January 6, 2010 by “willfully overvalu[ing] property and security, for the purpose of influencing the action of Amalgamated Bank upon one or more loans” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1014, 3551 et seq. ( Id. ¶¶ 22–23.) Count Four charges Mr. Watts with Making a False Statement on or about May 24, 2010 in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1014, 3551 et seq. ( Id. ¶¶ 24–25.)

The S–2 Indictment charges that Mr. Watts was the chief financial officer and chief investment officer of GDC Acquisitions, LLC, a holding company of related subsidiaries (collectively, “GDC”) at the center of this action. ( See id. ¶ 4.) The first four counts of the S–2 Indictment arise out of an alleged scheme to defraud Amalgamated Bank (“Amalgamated”), a federally insured financial institution, and C3 Capital, LLC (“C3”), a private equity investment firm, by obtaining, and attempting to obtain, loans for GDC subsidiaries on the basis of false financial statements and other material misrepresentations between January 2007 and July 2010. ( Id. ¶¶ 5, 6, 8.)

II. The Parties' Instant Motions and Requests

Watts' trial is currently scheduled to begin on April 29, 2013. ( See Trial Management Order of Feb. 6, 2013.) The government has made nine motions in limine in advance of trial. ( See generally ECF No. 608, First Mot. in Limine by USA (“Gov. Mem.”).) 2 Watts has likewise made nine motions in limine. ( See generally ECF No. 610, Mot. in Limine by Rodney Watts (Watts. Mem.).) 3 Watts has also filed a request, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(5)(A), that the trial jury be retained to determine the forfeitability of the property identified in the government's Bill of Particulars for the Forfeiture of Property. (ECF No. 609, Dft.'s Rule 32.2(b)(5)(A) Notification.) Watts further requests that the jury venire be given a questionnaire prior to the date of jury selection, if possible, and that Watts' consulting firm be permitted to conduct internet searches of prospective jurors during jury selection, and exercise peremptory challenges the following day. (ECF No. 656, Ltr. submitting courtesy copies at 1–2; ECF No. 667, Ltr. concerning in camera submission at 2–3.) The court heard oral argument on the parties' motions on February 1, 2013. ( See Minute Entry of Feb. 1, 2013.) At oral argument, the government raised the issue of Watts' production of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2 material. (Tr. of Oral Argument dated Feb. 1, 2013 (“Tr.”) at 63–64.) The parties' respective motions in limine and pretrial requests are addressed in turn below.

DISCUSSION
I. Motion in Limine Standard

The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule on the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence before the evidence is actually offered at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984); Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir.1996). “Evidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” United States v. Paredes, 176 F.Supp.2d 179, 181 (S.D.N.Y.2001). Courts considering a motion in limine may reserve decision until trial so that the motion is placed in the appropriate factual context. See Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. L.E. Myers Co. Grp., 937 F.Supp. 276, 286–87 (S.D.N.Y.1996). Furthermore, the court's ruling regarding a motion in limine is “subject to change when the case unfolds, particularly if the actual testimony differs from what was [expected].” Luce, 469 U.S. at 41, 105 S.Ct. 460.

II. Admissibility of Evidence Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence

The Federal Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility of evidence at trial. Rule 402 requires that evidence be relevant to be admissible. Fed.R.Evid. 402. Relevant evidence is defined as evidence having “any tendency to make the existence of any fact” that is of consequence to the determination of the action “more probable or less probable” than it would be without the evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 401. The court's determination of what constitutes “relevant evidence” is guided by the nature of the charges and the defendant's defense theories.

In addition to the relevancy of the evidence that the government seeks to admit or preclude, however, such evidence is subject to the probative-prejudice balancing test of Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Rule 403 permits the exclusion of evidence, even if relevant, “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of ... unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting of time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 403. The Second Circuit has stated that the district court is obviously in the best position to do the balancing mandated by Rule 403,’ and, accordingly, this Court grants ‘broad discretion’ to the district court to admit or exclude evidence pursuant to Rule 403.” United States v. George, 266 F.3d 52, 63 (2d Cir.2001) (quoting United States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102, 106 (2d Cir.1982)) (citation omitted). The court applies the foregoing analysis to the parties' respective motions.

III. The Government's Motions in Limine1. Application of the Law of the Case Doctrine to Watts' Trial

The government asks the court to apply the “law of the case doctrine to all motions in limine filed in advance of Watts' trial. ( See Gov. Mem. at 1–3.) The government argues that because Watts' trial was stayed only after he had joined in one of Dupree's motions in limine filed in advance of the Dupree/Foley trial, the court should avoid reconsidering issues previously decided in that prior trial. ( Id. at 1 (citing ECF No. 357, Ltr. Joining Dupree's Mot. in Limine).) Indeed, the court did address several issues in advance of the Dupree/Foley trial which are again at issue in advance of Watts' trial. See generally United States v. Dupree, 833 F.Supp.2d 255 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (government's motions in limine ), vacated in part on other grounds,706 F.3d 131 (2d Cir.2013); United States v. Dupree, No. 10–CR–627, 2011 WL 5976006, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139810 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2011) (Dupree's pretrial motions and motions in limine ). Watts, however, asserts that the government's argument for application of the law of the case doctrine is too broad. ( SeeWatts Opp. at 3–6.)

Under the law of the case doctrine, “when a court has ruled on an issue, that decision should generally be adhered to by that court in subsequent stages in the same case.” United States v. Carr, 557 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Plugh, 648 F.3d 118, 123–24 (2d Cir.2011). The doctrine is “driven by considerations of fairness to the parties, judicial economy, and the societal interest in finality.” Carr, 557 F.3d at 102. “A court's reconsideration of its own earlier decision in a case may, however, be justified in compelling circumstances, consisting principally of (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) new evidence, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.” Id. The law of the case doctrine “may be properly invoked only if the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the initial determination.” Westerbeke Corp. v. Daihatsu Motor Co., 304 F.3d 200, 219 (2d Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Lastly, application of the doctrine is “discretionary and does not limit a court's power to reconsider its own decisions prior to final judgment.” Sagendorf–Teal v. County of Rensselaer, 100 F.3d 270, 277 (2d Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983) (“Law of the case directs a court's discretion, it does not limit the tribunal's power.”); Westerbeke Corp., 304 F.3d at 219.

Here, despite the fact that Watts' trial was severed at his request, it does not appear that Watts' trial should be entirely governed by all rulings in the Dupree/Foley trial. Watts joined only in Dupree's motion in limine to limit the government's introduction of certain financial documents on ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • United States v. Robinson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • November 8, 2019
    ...could ground a due process claim"). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Government spoliated evidence. See United States v. Watts, 934 F. Supp. 2d 451, 478 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (denying spoliation sanctions where defendant "characterize[d] the government as having failed to preserve the docume......
  • United States v. Perkins, 09–CR–968 (DLI).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • January 10, 2014
    ...States v. Galestro, 2008 WL 2783360, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2008) (citing Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2); see also United States v. Watts, 934 F.Supp.2d 451, 493 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (holding that Rule 32.2 does not provide a right to a jury determination of the money judgment amount). “The defendant is ......
  • United States v. Graham
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • May 31, 2019
    ...charged with fraud acted in good faith and did not have the requisite intend to defraud the victim. See United States v. Watts, 934 F. Supp. 2d 451, 470 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing United States v. Alkins, 925 F.2d 541, 550 (2d Cir. 1991)). Stated differently, a defendant's honest belief in the......
  • United States v. Weaver
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • January 10, 2014
    ...(finding district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to use prospective juror questionnaire); United States v. Watts, 934 F.Supp.2d 451, 494 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (denying defendant's “request that jury venire be given a written questionnaire” in light of “court's practice of asking q......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Protecting Attorney Proffer Notes From Discovery
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 17, 2014
    ...arrows and circling are also equally reflective of an attorney's mental impressions and though processes. United States v. Watts, 934 F. Supp. 2d 451 (E.D.N.Y. As mentioned, these written notes become increasingly crucial the closer one gets to sentencing, at which time it must be clearly d......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT