Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Slough

United States District Court, District of Columbia

June 11, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
PAUL A. SLOUGH, EVAN S. LIBERTY, and DUSTIN L. HEARD, Defendants. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
NICHOLAS A. SLATTEN, Defendant

Page 17

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 18

For Paul Alvin Slough (1:08cr360), Defendants: Brian Matthew Heberlig, Mark Joseph Hulkower, Michael Jeremy Baratz, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Bruce Charles Bishop, Linda C. Bailey, STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, Washington, DC; Thomas C. Hill, LEAD ATTORNEY, PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP, Washington, DC; Scott P. Armstrong, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Washington, DC.

For Evan Shawn Liberty, Dustin Laurent Heard (1:08cr360), Defendants: Brian Matthew Heberlig, LEAD ATTORNEY, Mark Joseph Hulkower, STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, Washington, DC; Brian John Rooney, LEAD ATTORNEY, Brandon M. Bolling, Robert J. Muise, Ann Arbor, MI; William Francis Coffield, IV, LEAD ATTORNEY, Amanda Montee, COFFIELD LAW GROUP, LLP, Washington, DC; Steven J. McCool, LEAD ATTORNEY, MALLON & MCCOOL, LLC, Washington, DC.

For Donald Wayne Ball (1:08cr360), Defendant: Mark Joseph Hulkower, STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, Washington, DC; Danny C. Onorato, Steven J. McCool, LEAD ATTORNEYS, SCHERTLER & ONORATO LLP, Washington, DC.

For Jeremy P. Ridgeway, William M. Sullivan, Jr. (1:08cr360), Non-Party Petitioners: Thomas C. Hill, William M. Sullivan, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEYS, Keith David Hudolin, PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP, Washington, DC.

For Ryan R. Sparacino, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Llp (1:08cr360), Non-Party Petitioners: Thomas C. Hill, Keith David Hudolin, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP, Washington, DC.

For Washington Post (1:08cr360), Interested Party: James Amazaki McLaughlin, THE WASHINGTON POST, Washington, DC.

For Associated Press (1:08cr360), Interested Party: David A. Schulz, LEAD ATTORNEY, LEVINE SULLIVAN KOCH & SCHULZ, LLP, New York, NY.

For Center on Administration of Criminal Law (1:08cr360), Amicus: Daniel Joseph, LEAD ATTORNEY, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP, Washington, DC; Anthony S. Barkow, New York, NY.

For Nicholas Abram Slatten (1:14cr107), Defendants: Thomas Gerard Connolly, LEAD ATTORNEY, Anne Katherine Langer, Steven A. Fredley, HARRIS, WILTSHIRE, & GRANNIS LLP, Washington, DC; Jared P. Marx, PRO HAC VICE, HARRIS, WILTSHIRE, & GRANNIS LLP, Washington, DC.

OPINION

Page 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, United States District Judge.

Before the Court are the defendants' motions [ Slough 441, 447; Slatten 17] to exclude evidence detailed in the government's notice [ Slough 406] of intention to introduce evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) (" Rule 404(b)" ). Upon consideration of the defendants' motions [ Slough 441, 447; Slatten 17], the government's opposition [ Slough 481; Slatten 36], the defendants' replies [ Slough 492, 494; Slatten 41], the applicable law, and the entire record herein, the Court will DENY in part and GRANT in part the defendants' motions to exclude.

I. BACKGROUND

Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have previously described the factual background of this case. United States v. Slough, 677 F.Supp.2d 112, 116-129 (D.D.C. 2009) (" Slough I " ), vacated, 641 F.3d 544, 555, 395 U.S. App. D.C. 178 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (" Slough II " ); Slough II, 641 F.3d at 547-49. Thus, the Court will now only highlight the relevant facts and procedural background.

On March 28, 2014, the government filed a notice of its intention to introduce at trial evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) related to defendants Evan Liberty, Nicholas Slatten, and Paul Slough. United States v. Slough, 08 Cr. 360, ECF No. 406. In its notice, the government listed the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.