• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 99-113 of 266 results

No. 159 TRIAL BRIEF Re Admissibility of Caroline Cardenas's Statement to Police filed by Plaintiff ...

Document Alice Smithen v. United States of America et al, 2:09-cv-00414, No. 159 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 27, 2017)
Plaintiff Alice Smithen (“Smithen”) submits this response to the United States of America’s Brief Re Admissibility of Caroline Cardenas Statement to Police.
The United States of America (“USA”) seeks to admit as evidence statements Caroline Cardenas gave to the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) on March 6, 2008.
Under Rule 807, a hearsay statement that does not fall within an enumerated exception may be admitted if: (1) the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness; (2) it is offered as evidence of a material fact; (3) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts; and (4) admitting it will best serve the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice.
Grobaty Pitet LLP When a party seeks to admit evidence under Rule 807, it bears a heavy burden to provide indicia of both trustworthiness and probative force.
Far from confirming her statement to the LAPD, at the time of her grand jury testimony Cardenas could not tell where the gun was pointed or who produced it.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 161 MINUTES OF COURT TRIAL (1st Day) held before Judge George H. Wu: Witneses called, sworn and ...

Document Alice Smithen v. United States of America et al, 2:09-cv-00414, No. 161 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 27, 2017)
Title: CV 09-414-GW(PJWx) Alice Smithen v. United States of America, et al.
Present: The Honorable Javier Gonzalez Deputy Clerk Katie Thibodeaux Court Reporter/Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s): Michael J. Grobaty; Robert K. Peck Attorneys Present for Defendants: Ernest Cordero, Jr., AUSA; David Wallace, AUSA Day Court Trial 1st Begun (1st day); U Held & Continued; One day trial: The Jury is impaneled and sworn.
Opening statements made by U Witnesses called, sworn and testified.
Clerk reviewed admitted exhibits with counsel to be submitted to the Jury/Court for deliberation/findings.
Counsel stipulate to the return of exhibits upon the conclusion of trial.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 158 TRIAL BRIEF Re Admissibility of Opening Statement and Closing Argument in Criminal Trial filed ...

Document Alice Smithen v. United States of America et al, 2:09-cv-00414, No. 158 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 26, 2017)
And the Court points to the fact that none of the witnesses are direct -- is certainly not the issue of the defendant's purpose.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 157 TRIAL BRIEF Re Admissibility of USA's Opening Statement and Closing Argument in Itkowitz Criminal ...

Document Alice Smithen v. United States of America et al, 2:09-cv-00414, No. 157 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 24, 2017)
In February 2011, the USA obtained an indictment against Matthew Itkowitz (“Itkowitz”) for, among other things, depriving Ryan Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) of his right to be free from the unreasonable use of force by a law enforcement officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242.
She made statements such as:  “Defendant Matthew Itkowitz, an off duty United States Marshal, shot Ryan Gonzalez five times and killed in violation of his civil rights.
Grobaty Pitet LLP officer to create the opportunity to kill Gonzalez.” The USA is free to try to explain away the fact that it has done a complete 180 with respect to the controverted issues in this case.
Moreover, a substantial portion of the record of the Itkowitz criminal trial will be moved into evidence in this action regardless of the admission of the USA’s opening statement and closing argument.
Smithen and the USA have already agreed upon the admissibility of the trial testimony of Anthony Kim Ross, Juan Carrillo, Michael Peerson, Ismael Aldaz, Oscar Zamora, Jess McKay, Scott Murray, Victor Carrasco, and Vanessa Gould.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 154 TRIAL BRIEF Re Fed. R. Evid

Document Alice Smithen v. United States of America et al, 2:09-cv-00414, No. 154 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 24, 2017)
801(d)(2)(D) ANALYSIS Grobaty Pitet LLP Plaintiff Alice Smithen (“Smithen”) respectfully submits this trial brief regarding whether the Court can review the transcript of the Los Angeles Police Department’s interview of Matthew Itkowitz (Trial Exhibit 64) in determining its admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D).
Smithen intends to introduce as evidence the transcript of the Los Angeles Police Department’s interview of Matthew Itkowitz (“Itkowitz”).
As set forth below, Rule 801(d)(2) makes clear that the Court is required to review the interview transcript in determining its admissibility.
801(d)(2)(D) ANALYSIS Grobaty Pitet LLP an otherwise excludible statement relates to a matter within the scope of the agent’s employment.’” Sims v. Lakeside School, No. C06-1412RSM, 2007 WL 4219347, at *2 (W.D.
The authorities set forth above require the Court to review the interview transcript in determining its admissibility under Rule 801(d)(2)(D).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 153 TRIAL BRIEF Supplemental re Scope of Employment Versus Color of Law filed by Plaintiff Alice ...

Document Alice Smithen v. United States of America et al, 2:09-cv-00414, No. 153 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 24, 2017)
The United States of America (“USA”) criminally prosecuted Matthew Itkowitz (“Itkowitz”) for depriving Ryan Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) of his rights under the color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242.
Judge Gutierrez found that the USA had not presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Itkowitz acted under the color of law when he killed Gonzalez.
Specifically, Judge Gutierrez found that the USA failed to demonstrate that Itkowitz acted in the pretense of his official duties with the purpose and effect or influencing Gonzalez’s behavior.
Judge Gutierrez found that the USA failed to put forth sufficient evidence for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Itkowitz acted under the color of law when he killed Gonzalez.
Menghi brought an action against Hart and the County of Suffolk (respondeat superior liability) for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act (“DPAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2721, et seq.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 160 MINUTES OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held before Judge George H. Wu

Document Alice Smithen v. United States of America et al, 2:09-cv-00414, No. 160 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 23, 2017)
Case No. CV 09-414-GW(PJWx) Alice Smithen v. United States of America, et al.
Title Date February 23, 2017 Present: The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Javier Gonzalez Nichole Forrest Tape No. Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Michael J. Grobaty Dave Wallace, AUSA Ernest Cordero, Jr., AUSA
Court and counsel confer re pretrial issues.
Court issues its rulings on objections.
Bench Trial remains set for February 27 at 1:00 p.m.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 148

Document Alice Smithen v. United States of America et al, 2:09-cv-00414, No. 148 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 22, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 151

Document Alice Smithen v. United States of America et al, 2:09-cv-00414, No. 151 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 22, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 149

Document Alice Smithen v. United States of America et al, 2:09-cv-00414, No. 149 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 22, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 147

Document Alice Smithen v. United States of America et al, 2:09-cv-00414, No. 147 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 16, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 144

Document Alice Smithen v. United States of America et al, 2:09-cv-00414, No. 144 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 10, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 145

Document Alice Smithen v. United States of America et al, 2:09-cv-00414, No. 145 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 10, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 146

Document Alice Smithen v. United States of America et al, 2:09-cv-00414, No. 146 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 10, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 143

Document Alice Smithen v. United States of America et al, 2:09-cv-00414, No. 143 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 10, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 17 18 19 >>