Memorandum Opinion and Order — No. 5:23-cr-00124 (Dkt. 37, E.D. Ky.)

Summary

A Memorandum Opinion and Order, Doc #: 37, filed January 3, 2024 in United States v. Vonnie J. McDaniels, Criminal Action No. 5: 23-124-DCR (Case: 5:23-cr-00124-DCR-MAS), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division (at Lexington). The defendant is charged with escaping from federal custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), and both parties filed motions in limine on the evidence to be introduced at trial. The court grants in part and denies in part the defendant's motion [Record No. 30] on the nature of his prior convictions and other history, and denies the United States' motion [Record No. 31] to exclude evidence of his destination after leaving the Dismas House.

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

Cite this document

“Memorandum Opinion and Order — No. 5:23-cr-00124 (Dkt. 37, E.D. Ky.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/memorandum-opinion-and-order-no-5-23-cr-00124-dkt-37-e-d-ky-bd8ac621bb/, SHA-256 13a8261db24962a3db7335ba3bebb1b705410d6ae4e946c3385114dae3f63681.

Full text

Case: 5:23-cr-00124-DCR-MAS Doc #: 37 Filed: 01/03/24 Page: 1 of 6 - Page ID#: 150

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
(at Lexington)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Criminal Action No. 5: 23-124-DCR
)
V. )
)
VONNIE J. MCDANIELS, ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
) AND ORDER
Defendant. )

*** *** *** ***

Defendant Vonnie McDaniels is charged with escaping from federal custody in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). Both parties have filed motions in limine seeking to exclude

and/or limit the introduction of certain evidence during trial. [Record Nos. 30, 31] McDaniels

requests that any mention of the nature of his prior federal felony convictions, his history of

assault and resisting arrest, and references to the “Fugitive Task Force” be excluded from trial.

[Record No. 30] The United States seeks to exclude evidence of Defendant McDaniels’

destination after the alleged escape occurred. [Record No. 31]

The motions focus primarily on the relevance of potential evidence and the risk that its

introduction may result in unfair prejudice, confuse the issues, or mislead the jury. The Court

begins with reference to the plain text of Rule 401: “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any

tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b)

the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” “Even if a district court believes the

evidence is insufficient to prove the ultimate point for which it is offered, it may not be exclude

-1-
Case: 5:23-cr-00124-DCR-MAS Doc #: 37 Filed: 01/03/24 Page: 2 of 6 - Page ID#: 151

the evidence if it has the slightest probative worth.” DXS, Inc. v. Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 100

F.3d 462, 475 (6th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added). For purposes of Rule 401(b), “a fact is ‘of

consequence’ if it makes it more or less likely that the defendant committed the charged

conduct.” United States v. Hazelwood, 979 F.3d 398, 409 (6th Cir. 2020). The proffered

evidence need only be “a step on one evidentiary route to the ultimate fact.” Old Chief v.

United States, 519 U.S. 172, 179 (1997).

Evidence clearing the low bar of Rule 401 is balanced by the interests outlined in Rule

403. “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially

outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,

misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”

Fed. R. Evid. 403 (emphasis added). “The term ‘unfair prejudice,’ as to a criminal defendant,

speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the factfinder into

declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense charged.” Old Chief,

519 U.S. at 180.

McDaniels first argues that the government should be prohibited from mentioning his

prior criminal convictions and should refrain from soliciting any testimony from any witness

resulting in its disclosure. The government’s burden of proving guilt under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a)

requires only a showing that McDaniels was in custody as a result of having committed “any

offense.” The parties’ joint stipulation to the jury concedes this point. [Record No. 29] At this

point, the inclusion of details about the underlying offense would not be “of consequence” in

determining the action and would increase the likelihood of unfair prejudice. See Fed. R. Evid.

401(b), 403.
-2-
Case: 5:23-cr-00124-DCR-MAS Doc #: 37 Filed: 01/03/24 Page: 3 of 6 - Page ID#: 152

The United States’ response to McDaniels’ motion acknowledges the stipulation and

agrees not to introduce evidence during its case-in-chief regarding the nature of McDaniels’

prior offenses, or the fact that they were felonies. The United States will also be directed not

to solicit witness testimony likely to reveal that information. However, both parties

acknowledge that this information may be admissible for impeachment purposes under Rule

609, should McDaniels choose to testify.

Next, McDaniels cites Rule 404(b) in an effort to prevent evidence or testimony

indicating that he has a criminal history that includes Assault and Fleeing/Resisting Law

Enforcement. The United States responds that it does not intend to introduce this information

during its direct examination of witnesses during trial, but notes that evidence offered during

McDaniels’ case-in-chief and during cross-examination may open the door to explaining why

law enforcement responded as it did.

Rule 404(b)(1) prohibits using evidence of prior criminal activity “to prove a person’s

character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with

the character.” But nothing in Rule 404 would bar the government from offering the

information to rationalize why law enforcement responded as it did. However, admission

through this route is still subject to scrutiny under Rules 401 and 403. Absent McDaniels’

addressing the nature of the law enforcement response, the government’s introduction of such

evidence would not be “of consequence,” particularly given the parties’ stipulation. See Rule

401(b). Furthermore, introducing McDaniels’ history of Fleeing/Resisting Law Enforcement

runs a considerable risk of unfair prejudice under Rule 403. Accordingly, the United States

will be instructed not to introduce evidence or solicit witness testimony during its case-in-chief
-3-
Case: 5:23-cr-00124-DCR-MAS Doc #: 37 Filed: 01/03/24 Page: 4 of 6 - Page ID#: 153

intending to reveal that McDaniels’ criminal history includes Assault and Fleeing/Resisting

Law Enforcement. Should McDaniels’ open the door by inviting explanations for why law

enforcement took certain actions, the evidence may be admissible under Rules 401 and

404(b)(2) and would not be excluded under Rule 403.

McDaniels’ final request is that references to the Central Kentucky Fugitive Task Force

(“CKFT”) be excluded as unfairly prejudicial. He argues that such references could cause the

jury to make a predetermination that he was a fugitive. The Court is completely unpersuaded

by this argument. As the United States reasonably notes, this entire case is premised on the

government’s contention that McDaniels’ was a fugitive. Accordingly, it seems fitting that

the CKFT would be utilized for his apprehension and unreasonable that the government should

have to obscure this fact. Use of the task force is not indicative of McDaniels’ status as a

fugitive, only the government’s belief that he was a fugitive. The bar McDaniels’ must clear

to exclude evidence under Rule 403 is not merely that the evidence is prejudicial, inasmuch as

most, if not all, evidence offered against a defendant is prejudicial. McDaniels’ must show

that the probative value in referencing the tasks force’s name is substantially outweighed by

the danger of unfair prejudice. See Rule 403. And McDaniels has not met this burden. Insofar

as the government’s reference to CKFT does not implicate McDaniels’ criminal history as

discussed above, references to the named task force is permissible.

The United States’ motion in limine seeks to preclude McDaniels from introducing any

evidence and/or testimony regarding his destination or location after his alleged escape from

federal custody. But as McDaniels points out, evidence regarding his location is relevant in
-4-
Case: 5:23-cr-00124-DCR-MAS Doc #: 37 Filed: 01/03/24 Page: 5 of 6 - Page ID#: 154

proving his theory that he did not escape from custody and, in the alternative, that he lacked

the requisite mens rea for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a).

The United States argues that McDaniels is being prosecuted for a “walkaway escape.”

It asserts that the criminal act of escape was completed by virtue of leaving Dismas House

without authorization and that McDaniels’ location after that act is irrelevant. However, the

government also concedes that it has the burden of showing that McDaniels “knowingly and

voluntarily left custody without permission.” [Record No. 31, p. 4]

McDaniels argues that he was still on home confinement and that by leaving Dismas

House and returning to his home, he was in fact returning to home confinement as directed.

McDaniels’ destination upon leaving Dismas House is relevant evidence from which a jury

may surmise his state of mind. The government’s arguments invoking Rules 402 and 403 are

unpersuasive. Therefore, evidence regarding McDaniels’ destination after leaving Dismas

House will be permitted.

II.

Being sufficiently advised, it is hereby

ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant McDaniels’ motion in limine [Record No. 30] is GRANTED, in part,

and DENIED, in part, consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

2. The United States’ motion in limine [Record No. 31] is DENIED.

-5-
Case: 5:23-cr-00124-DCR-MAS Doc #: 37 Filed: 01/03/24 Page: 6 of 6 - Page ID#: 155

Dated: January 3, 2024.

-6-

File and source

File: 37.pdf
Size: 196,330 bytes
SHA-256: 13a8261db24962a3db7335ba3bebb1b705410d6ae4e946c3385114dae3f63681
Our copy: 37.pdf
Original: No public link identified.