Opinion, Government's in Limine Motion — United States v. Leon Haynes (D.N.J., Document 90)

Summary

Opinion by William J. Martini in United States v. Leon Haynes, Criminal No. 24-00232 (WJM), District of New Jersey, on the Government's in limine motion (ECF No. 70) ahead of trial beginning on November 3, 2025. The Court grants the motion in part, ordering the Defendant before November 3, 2025 to allow inspection of materials intended for use in the case-in-chief and to give notice of potential defenses that require notice. It permits a summary witness and summary exhibits under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 and orders the Government to produce the summary exhibits by October 20, 2025. It denies without prejudice the Defendant's requests about "characterizations or conclusions" and "equivalent time and resources", and reserves judgment on all remaining requests.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 2:24-cr-00232-WJM Document90_ Filed 10/14/25 Page 1 of 4 PagelD: 552

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Criminal No, 24-00232 (WJM)
v. OPINION
LEON HAYNES

WILLIAM J. MARTINI U.S.D.J.

The Government moves the Court in limine for miscellaneous relief ahead of trial
beginning on November 3, 2025. ECF No. 70 (“Motion”). The Motion is now fully
briefed, and the Court decides the Motion on the papers without oral argument. Loc. Civ.
R. 78.1; Loc, Crim. R. 1.1 (applying Local Civil Rule 78.1 to criminal cases). For the
reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART, and the Court RESERVES
judgment on all remaining issues until the morning of trial.

L BACKGROUND

The Court assumes the parties are familiar with the relevant facts as set forth in the
operative Indictment, ECF No. 89.'! In short, the Defendant, a former tax preparer, is
accused of 23 counts of filing false tax returns, mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, and
tax evasion. Indictment {J 2, 57-66.

In the Motion, the Government makes eight requests to the Court. However, the Court
only considers for now two of the requests relating to (1) production of reciprocal discovery
and (2) the use of a summary witness and summary exhibits, along with the Defendant’s
responses to these requests, ECF No. 77 (“Response”). The Court will rule on the
remaining requests on the morning of trial.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Trial courts have “wide latitude” to control the admission of evidence before trial.
United States v. Romano, 849 F.2d 812, 815 3d Cir. 1998). However, trial courts “should
exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on
all potential grounds.” United States v. Tartaglione, 228 F. Supp. 3d 402, 406 (E.D. Pa.
2017) (citing Leonard v. Stemtech Health Sciences, Inc., 981 F. Supp. 2d 273, 276 (D. Del.

' Following a status conference on October 1, 2025, the Government filed a letter with
the Court requesting permission to proceed to trial on an Amended Indictment. ECF No.
83 (“Indictment”). The Court granted this request. ECF No. 88.

1
Case 2:24-cr-00232-WJM Document90_ Filed 10/14/25 Page 2 of 4 PagelD: 553

2013)). Instead of ruling on a motion in limine in advance of trial, the court can “reserve
judgment until trial in order to place the motion in the appropriate factual context.” Jd. -

I. DISCUSSION
A. Reciprocal Discovery

First, the Government moves to compel production of discoverable information from
the Defendant to the extent any materials exist and require the Defendant to provide notice
of any defenses that require notice, Mot. 10-11. The Defendant has asserted that he is not
aware of any reciprocal discovery but would provide any discovery he intends to use at
trial. Resp. 3. Because this request is unopposed, and “to prevent the defendant from
obtaining an unfair advantage,” United States v. Hoffecker, 530 F.3d 137, 185 (3d Cir.
2008) (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(c) Advisory Committee Notes (1966 Amendment)), in
the event that the Defendant’s trial strategy evolves, the Court GRANTS the Government’s
request pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1), Before November 3,
2025, the Defendant is ORDERED to (1) allow the Government to inspect any materials
that the Defendant intends to use in his case-in-chief and (2) provide notice of any potential
defenses that require notice.

B. Summary Evidence

Next, the Government indicated its intent to call a summary witness, Supervisory
Special Agent Dimosthenis Diamantis,* and to use summary charts pursuant to Federal
Rule of Evidence 1006 based on the “voluminous” tax and financial records it has collected
and analyzed. Mot. 13-14.3 The Defendant does not oppose this request. Resp. 3. Instead,
the Defendant requests (1) that the Government provide the summary exhibits “at least 30
days before trial,” (2) “[p]rohibit characterizations or conclusions” unless “explicitly
contained” in the underlying materials, and (3) give the Defendant “equivalent time and
resources to prepare counter-summaries ifneeded.” Jd. This section discusses each request
in turn.

1. Summary witness and exhibits

Since the Defendant does not oppose the Government’s request to call a summary
witness and use summary charts, the Court GRANTS this portion of the Motion. Based
on the Government’s submissions, the Court determines that Supervisory Agent Diggins
will help streamline the presentation of evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a). Additionally,
summary exhibits are generally admissible as substantive evidence to the extent that the
underlying materials are admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 1006. Therefore, the Court PERMITS

* The Government originally named Supervisory Agent Adrienne Diggins as its summary
witness, but the Government stated that it needed to call a different witness due to the
change in trial date. Reply 4 n.1.

3 In the alternative, the Government moves to admit the summary evidence as
demonstrative aids. Mot. 16; see Fed. R. Evid. 107. The Court does not consider this
basis at this time.
Case 2:24-cr-00232-WJM Document90_ Filed 10/14/25 Page 3 of 4 PagelD: 554

the Government to proceed at trial using summary exhibits, subject to all other
prerequisites of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Government meeting its deadline to
produce the summary exhibits in advance of trial as discussed below.

2. The Defendant’s Requests

In response, the Defendant requests (1) that the Government provide the summary
exhibits “at least 30 days before trial,” (2) “[p]rohibit characterizations or conclusions”
unless “explicitly contained” in the underlying materials, and (3) give the Defendant
“equivalent time and resources to prepare counter-summaries if needed.” Resp. 3. The
Government opposes the first two of these requests, arguing that Rule 1006 does not require
production of the summaries ahead of trial, nor does it prohibit conclusory statements. ECF
No. 80 (“Reply”), 5-6. The Government does not address the third request. The
Government has asserted that it would produce drafts of the summary charts “as soon as
they are finalized and in advance of trial.” Id. 6.

As an initial matter, while the Defendant must have the opportunity to inspect the
materials underlying the summary exhibits “at a reasonable time and place,” Fed. R. Evid.
1006(b), the Defendant does not have the right to inspect the summary exhibits themselves
before trial. See Colon-Fontanez v. Municipality of San Juan, 660 F.3d 17, 30 (1st Cir.
2011); Bid. Nat. Title Ins. Co. of New York y. Intercounty Nat. Title Ins. Co., 412 F.3d 745,
753 (7th Cir, 2005). The Government proffers that it has already made the underlying
materials available and would make drafts of the summary exhibits available to the
Defendant before trial. Reply 6. Accordingly, the dispute here turns on the length of the
time before trial for the Defendant to dissect the exhibits. The Court determines that two
weeks is a reasonable length of time for the Defendant to review the summary exhibits
before trial. Therefore, the Court ORDERS the Government to produce to the Defendant
all summary exhibits it intends to use at trial by October 20, 2025.

Next, the Defendant’s request to prevent the witness from offering “characterizations
or conclusions” is vague and premature, since the Court has not received the Government’s
actual summary materials nor heard testimony. The Court DENIES this request without
prejudice, However, the Court notes that a summary witness may offer opinion testimony
when such opinions are (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception, (b) helpful to
“clearly understanding” the witness’s testimony or to determining an at-issue fact, and (c)
not based on knowledge within the scope of the rules regarding expert testimony. United
States v, Fulton, 837 F.3d 281, 291 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 701). The Court
can permit opinion testimony based on personal knowledge about what the evidence shows
as a factual matter, not opinion testimony based on assumptions, inferences, and technical
expertise. Compare United States v. Jarmon, 14 F Ath 268, 273 (3d Cir. 2021) (affirming
admission of summary testimony involving the agent’s “investigation, her personal
observations, and her beliefs of what the evidence showed”), with United States v. Shulick,
[8 F.4th 91, 106 Gd Cir. 2021) (affirming exclusion of a summary with “assumptions and
inferences that represent the witness’s opinion, rather than the underlying information”
(citation modified)).
Case 2:24-cr-00232-WJM Document90_ Filed 10/14/25 Page 4 of 4 PagelD: 555

Finally, the Defendant’s request for “equivalent time and resources” is premature,
vague, and non-specific. See Leonard v. Stemtech Health Scis., Inc., 981 F. Supp. 2d 273,
276 (D. Del. 2013) (observing that a court may deny a motion in limine when it lacks the
necessary specificity regarding the evidence to be excluded). The Court therefore DENIES
this request without prejudice.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court ORDERS the Defendant to permit the Government to inspect any materials
that he intends to use in his case-in-chief and to provide notice of any potential defenses
that require notice. The Court PERMITS the Government to proceed at trial with a
summary witness and summary exhibits, and the Court ORDERS the Government to
produce the summary exhibits it intends to use at trial by October 20, 2025. The Court
RESERVES judgment on all remaining requests in the Motion. An appropriate order
follows.

DATE: October ft. 2025

TAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.


File and source

File

90.pdf

Size

198,805 bytes

SHA-256

35d7ce69dbc080e4d18b36264092d45cfe8ea039c50cc224806c4af372fca93a

Our copy

90.pdf

Original

No public link identified.