`
`UNITED STATES DISCTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
` V.
`
`JOSE FIGUEROA-AGOSTO
`CARLOS RODRIGUEZ-MILIAN (37)
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`
`
` TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
`
` CRIM. NO: 10-0435 (PG)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION IN LIMINE
`
`
`
`COMES NOW DEFENDANT CARLOS RODRIGUEZ-MILIAN, REPRESENTED BY
`
`THE UNDERSIGNING COUNSEL, AND RESPECTFULLY ALLEGES, STATES, AND PRAYS:
`
`1. The Government’s intends to admit at trial a log sheet and entry that has not yet been
`
`authenticated and one whose entry has been materially altered or manipulated in
`
`handwriting along the entry line/column in the log sheet allegedly pertaining the
`
`defendant’s log entry in the Arecibo Airport. See US Amended Designation of
`
`Evidence (Dkt. 1576) identifies item number 110 as Arecibo Airport Log 08/22/2009.
`
`(Attachment 1)
`
`2. The one-page document is written in Spanish and contains an entry allegedly
`
`pertaining to the defendant. Also, there are no translations of this document in record.
`
`3. In the very same entry line allegedly relating to the defendant there is clearly altered
`
`entry in handwriting which renders the entry illegible as to the entry because of said
`
`alteration. The alteration was not saved with any initials next to the alteration and the
`
`document was produced by the government with said alteration.
`
`
`
`Case 3:10-cr-00435-PG Document 1678 Filed 01/25/14 Page 2 of 3
`
`4. The authentication of a document is necessary to establish that a document is what it
`
`purports to be and that there is a relationship between the document and an
`
`individual. See F.R.E. 901.
`
`5. In determining whether the evidence is admissible, the trial court “must conclude that
`
`it was reasonably probable that the evidence had not been altered since the
`
`occurrence of the crime.” United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 75, 89 (1st Cir. 1986),
`
`cert. denied, 482 U.S. 906, 107 S.Ct. 2484, (1987).
`
`6. Given the above the document has been altered and the alteration is a material entry
`
`pertaining to the allegations against this defendant. The alteration is specifically in
`
`relation to the defendant and thus, a material part of the content of the document.
`
`7. Therefore the material alteration of the log entry not only makes the entry input
`
`indiscernible, but also renders the document altered, suspect, unreliable, not genuine,
`
`and consequently inadmissible into evidence, and thus, the altered document should
`
`be excluded, pursuant to F.R.E. 103, 105, and 901.
`
`8. Furthermore, the altered log entry fails to satisfy authentication due to unreliability.
`
`9. We request this Honorable Court rule that item 110 be excluded as inadmissible
`
`evidence not be referred to or offered at trial.
`
` WHEREFORE, THE DEFENDANT RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THIS
`
`HONORABLE COURT ORDER US DESIGNATED ITEM 110 AIRPORT LOG 8/22/2009 AS
`
`ALTERED AND INADMISSIBLE.
`
` RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, on January 23, 2014.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I hereby certify electronic filing of this motion via CM/ECF
`
`which notifies this motion to the government.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:10-cr-00435-PG Document 1678 Filed 01/25/14 Page 3 of 3
`
`(Signed) Hector L. Barreto-Cintron
`Hector L. Barreto-Cintron, Esq.
`Attorney for the Defendant
`U.S.D.C. No. 220808
`PO Box 21476, San Juan PR 00931
`T./F. (787) 539-9000
`hectorbarretolaw@gmail.com
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
