Court filing
Response in Opposition by Kisha Sutton re: 270 Motion — United States v. Sutton et al. (Dkt. 273, S.D. W. Va.)
Filed June 24, 2025 in United States v. Sutton et al.; one of 133 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-06-24 |
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia · No. 2:24-cr-00192 · Doc. 273 · 2025-06-24 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, V. CASE NO.: 2:24-cr-00192 KISHA SUTTON, DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT KISHA SUTTON’S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ADVOCATING JURY NULLIFICATION NOW COMES the Defendant, Kisha Sutton, by and through counsel, and hereby responds to the Government’s Motion In Limine to Preclude Arguments and Evidence Advocating Jury Nullification by stating that the Defense does not intend on arguing evidence for the purpose of jury nullification, but will introduce certainevidencethatis relevant to the issues andelementsofthecaseandinresponsetomattersraisedbythe Government. Potential Penalties DefendantSuttondoesnotintendtoinformthejuryofanysuchpotentialpenalties she faces in the event she were to be convicted. However, this request In Limine is premature as the evidence needs to come inbeforetheCourtcanrule.Thus,Defendant Sutton asks the Court to deny this request at this time. Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 273 Filed 06/24/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1361 Nursing Education Programs / Nursing License Itdoesn’tappearthattheGovernment’srequesttopreventevidenceofacourseof study, future career plans, and/or potential harm a felony conviction would to to those plansappliestoMs.Sutton.Nevertheless,anyevidencepresentedsurroundingMs.Sutton, her employment, her education, and any other training she may haveisclearlyrelevant informationthejuryisentitledtointhiscase.Whilethedefensedoesnotintendtoargue this evidence for the purpose of jury nullification, such as arguing the consequences of conviction, the defense does intend on presenting evidence of Ms. Sutton’s background, employment and education for the purposes related to the issue of intent to commit a crime and to provide the jury a full picture of who Ms.Suttonisasanindividual,which goesdirectlytowardscredibility. Rule404(a)wouldalsoallowthistypeofevidenceinas character evidence. Thus,whilethedefensehasnointentionofarguingtheramifications of a conviction with regard to employment or future goals, it does intend on properly soliciting evidence of educational experience, employment, and training for otherwise proper purposes that may develop at trial. This request InLimineis premature as the evidence needs to comeinbeforethe Court can rule. Thus, Defendant Sutton asks the Court to deny this request at this time. Child / Family Care / Financial Responsibilities Defendant Sutton at this point does not intend to introduce evidence of her children, family care, or financial responsibilities for the purposes of jury nullification. However,DefendantSuttondoesreservetherighttointroducesuchevidenceintheevent it becomesrelevanttoanissueathand.Forexample,theonlytietheGovernmenthasto Ms. Sutton’s alleged submission of the PPPloansisanIPaddresslinkedtoherpersonal Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 273 Filed 06/24/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1362 information.Thegovernmentcannotpinpointwhowasoperatingtheinternetatthetime the application was submitted, so evidence of her family being present could become relevant. This request InLimineis premature as the evidence needs to comeinbeforethe Court can rule. Thus, Defendant Sutton asks the Court to deny this request at this time. Medical Diagnoses / Physical & Emotional Disabilities The Defendant does not intend to introduce or solicit evidence regarding Ms. Sutton’smedicalcondition(s)and/orphysicaloremotionaldisabilitiesforthesakeofjury nullification.However,DefendantSuttondoesintendtooffersuchevidenceintheeventit becomes relevant to an issue brought up at trial. This request InLimineis premature as the evidence needs to comeinbeforethe Court can rule. Thus, Defendant Sutton asks the Court to deny this request at this time. Respectfully submitted, By Counsel S://Connor D. Robertson________ Connor Robertson (11460) ROBERTSON LAW PLLC 2939 Virginia Avenue, Suite 2010 Hurricane, WV 25526 (304) 557-1601 cdr@croblaw.com Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 273 Filed 06/24/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1363 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, V. CASE NO.: 2:24-CR-000192-01 KISHA SUTTON, DEFENDANT. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Connor Robertson, certify that on the 24rd day of June, 2025, a copy of the foregoingResponsewasservedontheUnitedStatesbyECF,toJonathanStorage,Assistant United States Attorney to the following: Jonathan Storage Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan.Storage@usdoj.gov S:// Connor D. Robertson Connor Robertson (11460) ROBERTSON LAW PLLC 2939 Virginia Avenue, Suite 2010 Hurricane, WV 25526 (304) 557-1601 CDR@CROBLAW.COM Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 273 Filed 06/24/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1364
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.273.0.pdf
- Size
- 87,961 bytes
- SHA-256
- 327cfb54102ed3b6cf1301059264c238db6014f3def19dcc10d100a91307f87f
- Original
- PACER (login required)