United States District Court, D. Arizona
G, Campbell, Senior United States District Judge.
government has charged Defendant Martin Gerardo Mendoza with
three counts of abusive sexual contact in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1152, 2242(2)(B), 2244(b), 2246(2)(A),
and 2246(3). Doc. 40. Pending before the Court are
Mendoza's and the government's motions in limine.
Docs. 61, 62, 73. The Court will deny Mendoza's motion
and grant the government's motions in part.
government alleges that Mendoza sexually abused his coworker,
C.B., while at a work conference. See Docs. 40; 61
at 2. On May 3, 2018, Mendoza and C.B. drove together to the
conference in Prescott, Arizona. Doc. 61 at 2. Later that
evening, Mendoza and C.B. visited several bars with their
coworkers and C.B. became very intoxicated. Unable to walk
unaided, Mendoza and another coworker helped C.B. to her
hotel room, used her room key to enter, placed her on the
bed, and then left. Id. According to the government,
Mendoza kept C.B.'s room key and, about 30 minutes later,
returned to abuse her. Id.
Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403.
relevance and admissibility of evidence at trial is governed
in part by Rules 401, 402, and 403. Evidence is relevant
under Rule 401 if it has any tendency to make a material fact
more or less probable. Fed.R.Evid. 401(a)-(b). Rule 402
provides that relevant evidence is admissible unless
otherwise excluded by the rules, a federal statute, or the
Constitution, and that irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
Fed.R.Evid. 402. Rule 403 states that relevant evidence may
be excluded if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of “unfair prejudice,
confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay,
wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 403. Trial courts have
discretion to limit or exclude evidence under Rules 402 and
403. United States v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 971 (9th
The Government's Motions.
To Preclude Testimony under Rules 401-404 and 608.
disclosed summaries of his investigator's interviews with
two coworkers, Martin Lopez and Sonia Bermudez. See
Doc. 61 at 3. Based on that disclosure, the government moves
to preclude certain testimony under Rules 401-404 and 608.
Id. at 2-3.
stated to the investigator that C.B. is “more
aggressive than most women, ” a “very jolly
person, ” and “one of the guys.”
Id. at 3. He also stated that a supervisor once
“threw some work gloves on [C.B.'s] desk and asked
her to do something with them, ” and C.B. felt
offended. Id. Of this incident, Lopez stated that
C.B. “made a bigger deal than it actually was.”
Id. He reported that he did not feel comfortable
going to conferences with her because he did not want her to
“turn things into something they're not, ”
and that he has lost trust in her. Id. Lopez stated
also that Mendoza is nice, honest, and “not a
described C.B. as loud, and “aggressive at work.”
Id. She stated that C.B. has made unspecified
“racial remarks” about “black guys or
Chinese guys, ” and that C.B. has no filter, acts like
a teenager, and “lacks common sense for a woman her
age.” Id. Bermudez reported that C.B. once
embarrassed herself at a party and needs to stop drinking.
does not seek to admit much of the testimony above, and
offers only the following under Rule 608. See Doc.
74. Mendoza will elicit from Lopez that C.B. “is
dangerous and will turn things into something they are not,
” and that she lacks a character for truthfulness.
Id. at 5. If Mendoza's character for
truthfulness is attacked, Lopez will also testify that
Mendoza is truthful. Id. at 6.
will elicit from Bermudez that C.B. is not credible and
exaggerates a lot. Id. He also seeks to elicit
Bermudez's testimony about two specific events where C.B.
drank alcohol at parties and acted “in a sexually
aggressive manner” to different coworkers. Id.
at 6. Bermudez would also testify about her conversations
with C.B. after the ...