Court filing
Response in Opposition as to Carla Jackson filed by Carla Jackson — USA v. Thomas et al. (Dkt. 816, N.D. Ga.)
Filed January 12, 2024 in USA v. Thomas et al.; one of 81 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2024-01-12 |
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS · Doc. 816 · 2024-01-12 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES )
)
v. )
)
INDICTMENT NO.
CARLA JACKSON,
)
1:20-CR-00296-JPB-CMS-05
Defendant
)
______________________________ )
RESPONSE TO UNITED STATES’
CONSOLIDATED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
COMES NOW Defendant CARLA JACKSON, by and through
undersigned counsel, and hereby files this response to the United States’
Consolidated Motions in Limine (Doc. 796). In support thereof, Defendant
shows as follows:
INTRODUCTION
The Government, in its Motion, seeks pretrial rulings from this Court
on several matters, including prohibitions of any evidence or arguments
made by Defendant regarding “self-serving statements,” “penalty evidence,”
“good character evidence,” Government “charging decisions,” “jury
nullification,” “victim blaming,” “ignorance of the law,” “self-authenticating
evidence,” and “summary charts under Rule 1006.”
Defendant Jackson, through undersigned counsel, will address each of
the Government’s arguments.
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS Document 816 Filed 01/12/24 Page 1 of 5
2
1. Self-serving statements
Defendant intends to comply with Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Also, in
response to footnote 2 in the Government’s Motion, Defendant asserts that
she is permitted to introduce other portions of any recorded statements she
may have made. See United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1223 (11th Cir.
2005) ("when a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced
by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any
other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness
to be considered contemporaneously with it.").
2. Penalty evidence
Defendant has no objection to the Government’s arguments about the
introduction of evidence or arguments regarding “penalty evidence,” but
only as such evidence is related specifically to Ms. Jackson and any
penalties she may or could face.
Defendant reserves the right, however, to elicit information during
cross examination about potential penalties that Government witnesses may
face, and any such witnesses’ biases, ulterior motives, and prejudices. See,
e.g., Sussman v. Jenkins, 636 F.3d 329, 353 (7th Cir. 2011) (exposure of a
witness' motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS Document 816 Filed 01/12/24 Page 2 of 5
3
constitutionally protected right of cross examination), citing Davis v. Alaska,
415 U.S. 308, 316-1317 (1974).
3. Good character evidence
The Government argues that Defendant should be precluded from
introducing evidence of her general good character or of specific instances
of good character.
Defendant intends to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Evid.
405(a)-(b).
4. Government charging decisions
Defendant objects to the Government’s argument for limitation on
Defendant’s ability to question witnesses regarding the Government’s
charging decisions. Such questions may be relevant, for example, to a
witness who benefitted from certain charging decisions. And such
questioning may be appropriate for Government law enforcement witnesses
to examine the background of their investigation.
5. Jury nullification
Defendant has no intention to argue for jury nullification.
6. Victim blaming
Defendant objects to this blanket objection by the Government. Ms.
Jackson should be allowed to question Government witnesses about the PPP
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS Document 816 Filed 01/12/24 Page 3 of 5
4
loan program and the application process for those persons seeking loan
proceeds. If the responses of Government witnesses reveal application
process deficiencies to a jury or show a lack of proper due diligence by
financial institutions in screening these loans, that is not “victim blaming”
but rather relevant evidence about PPP and how these loans are processed.
7. Ignorance of the law
Defendant has no intention to argue ignorance of the law.
8. Self-authenticating evidence
Defendant reserves the right to object to any evidence on relevance
grounds.
9. Summary charts
To the extent the Government seeks to introduce summary charts that
are irrelevant or not in compliance with Fed. R. Evid. 1006, Defendant
objects.
Respectfully submitted this 12th day of January, 2024.
/s/ David D. Marshall
David D. Marshall
Attorney for Defendant
Georgia Bar No. 471517
2550 Sandy Plains Road
Suite 225 PMB 349
Marietta, Georgia 30066
(404) 213-1358 (phone)
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS Document 816 Filed 01/12/24 Page 4 of 5
5
ddmarshall98@gmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that the foregoing was formatted in 14-point Times
Roman, in accordance with Local Rule 5.1C, and was electronically filed
this day with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will
automatically send email notification of such filing to the following:
All defense counsel; All AUSA’s of record
This 12th day of January, 2024.
/s/ David D. Marshall
David D. Marshall
Attorney for Defendant
Georgia Bar No. 471517
2550 Sandy Plains Road
Suite 225 PMB 349
Marietta, Georgia 30066
(404) 213-1358 (phone)
ddmarshall98@gmail.com
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS Document 816 Filed 01/12/24 Page 5 of 5File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.gand.279867.816.0.pdf
- Size
- 172,280 bytes
- SHA-256
- bd875f19c3d1e49340b20dcc13e41eb06aace3a58083b741ce4ff0880bb38836
- Original
- PACER (login required)