Case 7:22-cr-00665-PMH Document 66 Filed 11/27/23 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`OLDAMO FRAZER,
`
`Defendant.
`
`OPINION & ORDER
`
`22-CR-00665 (PMH)
`
`
`
`PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge:
`
`Oldamo Frazer (“Defendant”) stands charged in a three-count S1 Superseding Indictment
`
`with possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, para-fluorofentanyl, and cocaine in violation
`
`of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), 841(b)(1)(C). (Doc. 53). Before the Court is Defendant’s
`
`motion in limine to exclude certain proposed Government exhibits filed on October 20, 2023. (Doc.
`
`50, “Def. Br.”). The Government filed its opposition, in accordance with the deadline set by the
`
`Court, on November 20, 2023. (Doc. 61, “Gov. Br.”). For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s
`
`motion in limine is DENIED.
`
`Defendant’s motion seeks to preclude the following categories of Government exhibits: (1)
`
`exhibits arising from the August 5, 2022 car stop and arrest; (2) exhibits mentioning the knife
`
`recovered from the August 5, 2022 car stop (Exhibits 20, 313 and 314); (3) exhibits extracted from
`
`Defendant’s cell phone; and (5) the exhibit described as “Ammo found in kitchen” (Exhibit 15).
`
`(See generally Def. Br.).1 The Court addresses each branch seriatim.
`
`With respect to the first branch of Defendant’s motion, he seeks to preclude all exhibits
`
`“stemming from the August 5, 2022 car stop.” (Def. Br. at 2). However, the Court previously ruled
`
`
`1 Defendant also objects to a list of video exhibits on the basis of Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403, and
`404(b), but provides no argument supporting his objections. (Def. Br. at 7-8). Accordingly, to the extent
`Defendant seeks to preclude the video exhibits identified in his motion, that request is denied.
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cr-00665-PMH Document 66 Filed 11/27/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`at the November 6, 2023 final pretrial conference that evidence arising from the August 5, 2022
`
`car stop is admissible. (Gov. Br., Ex. 1 “FPTC Tr.” at 16:15-17:18). Accordingly, for the reasons
`
`set forth at the November 6, 2023 final pretrial conference, Defendant’s motion is denied as to the
`
`first branch.
`
`With respect to the second branch, Defendant argues that in the event the Court admits any
`
`evidence from the August 5, 2022 car stop, exhibits mentioning the knife that was recovered during
`
`the stop (Government Exhibits 20, 313 and 314) should be excluded under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 401, 403, and 404(b). (Def. Br. at 3). The Government contends that exhibits mentioning
`
`the knife are admissible in line with the Court’s prior rulings admitting evidence from the August
`
`5, 2022 car stop and of tools of the trade for narcotics dealers. (Gov. Br. at 3-4). The Court already
`
`declined to preclude evidence on the basis that it arose from the August 5, 2022 car stop.
`
`Additionally, the Court, albeit in the context of ammunition and firearms, previously ruled that
`
`“evidence that the defendant possessed tools of the trade for narcotics dealers” is admissible.
`
`(FPTC Tr. at 14:6-9). Courts have found knives to be “tools of the trade” for narcotics traffickers.
`
`See United States v. Reyes, 353 F.3d 148, 154 (2d Cir. 2003). Accordingly, exhibits mentioning
`
`the knife recovered during the August 5, 2022 car stop are admissible pursuant to the Court’s prior
`
`rulings. Defendant’s motion is denied as to the second branch.
`
`Regarding the third branch, Defendant seeks to preclude “all cellphone content not directly
`
`relevant to the drugs charged in the Indictment,” including photographs and screen shots of text
`
`messages contained for the most part in Government Exhibits 400 through 472-M. (Def. Br. at 4-
`
`7). Defendant specifically seeks to preclude Government Exhibit 404 (1,627 page text message
`
`report from July 2021 through October 2022), Government Exhibit 407 (screenshot from June 15,
`
`2022), and Government Exhibit 420 (extraction report from Defendant’s cell phone from 2021 and
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cr-00665-PMH Document 66 Filed 11/27/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`2022). (Id.). The Government states in opposition that it seeks to admit evidence extracted from
`
`Defendant’s cellphone to show that Defendant was in the business of distributing narcotics in
`
`October 2022 and for at least three years prior to his arrest in August 2022. (Gov. Br. at 4). The
`
`Government also indicates that Defendant’s objection to the volume of cell phone extraction
`
`evidence is moot because the parties are “currently engaged in discussions concerning a stipulation
`
`. . . which would streamline the trial and obviate the Government’s need for many exhibits and
`
`certain witnesses.” (Id. at 5).
`
`As set forth in more detail at the November 6, 2023 conference, the Court ruled that it will
`
`permit some evidence of Defendant’s involvement in narcotics trafficking during the pertinent
`
`three-year period. (FPTC Tr. at 18:5-22). The Court warned, however, that it will not permit
`
`cumulative and unnecessary evidence on the subject. (Id.). The Court also noted that a video is
`
`available which includes Defendant’s post-arrest statements regarding his narcotics trafficking
`
`operation. (Id.; Doc. 21 at 6-7). The Government should consider the availability of such evidence
`
`in determining what cellphone extraction evidence is necessary to offer at trial. Accordingly, in
`
`line with its prior ruling, the Court finds that some evidence extracted from Defendant’s cellphone
`
`may be admissible to establish that Defendant was involved in narcotics trafficking in October
`
`2022 and in the three years prior to his arrest. Defendant’s motion is denied as to the third branch.
`
`Lastly, Defendant moves to exclude Government Exhibit 15 (physical evidence of the
`
`aummunition seized from Defendant’s residence) pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403,
`
`and 404(b) on the basis that Defendant is not charged with possession of a weapon or ammunition.
`
`(Def. Br. at 8). The Government contends that the aummunition evidence is admissible as a tool
`
`of the narcotics trade. (Gov’t Br. at 6). The Court agrees. As the Court previously ruled that
`
`testimony about ammunition is admissible as evidence that Defendant possessed “tools of the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cr-00665-PMH Document 66 Filed 11/27/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`trade,” this branch of the motion is denied. (FPTC Tr. at 14:3-15). Physical evidence of
`
`ammunition is likewise admissible as “tools of the trade” evidence. Defendant’s motion to
`
`preclude Exhibit 15 is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: White Plains, New York
`
`November 24, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________
`Philip M. Halpern
`United States District Judge
`
`4
`
`