Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Stile

United States District Court, District of Maine

October 7, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JAMES STILE

Defendant (1) JAMES STILE represented by MATTHEW S. ERICKSON PETER E. RODWAY RODWAY & HORODYSKI WAYNE R. FOOTE LAW OFFICE OF WAYNE R. FOOTE WILLIAM MASELLI LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MASELLI JOSEPH M. BETHONY GROSS, MINSKY & MOGUL, P.A.

Plaintiff USA represented by ANDREW MCCORMACK OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY DISTRICT OF MAINE DONALD E. CLARK U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DISTRICT OF MAINE F. TODD LOWELL OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY JAMES L. MCCARTHY OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY JONATHAN R. CHAPMAN U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DISTRICT OF MAINE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ORDER ON GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE

JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Although evidence of the Defendant’s marijuana grow operation inside the house where he was living is relevant to the charges of pharmacy robbery, use of a firearm in furtherance of the robbery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, the Court concludes that the relevance is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice but cautions the defense that such evidence may become admissible if the Defendant opens the door.

I. BACKGROUND

James Stile stands charged of pharmacy robbery, use of a firearm in furtherance of a federal crime of violence, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and manufacturing more than 100 marijuana plants. Indictment (ECF No. 8). On July 17, 2014, the Court granted Mr. Stile’s motion to reconsider an earlier order that had denied his motion for relief from prejudicial joinder. Order on Def.’s Mot. for Recons. of Mot. for Relief From Prejudicial Joinder (ECF No. 434) (Order). The Court severed the trial of the marijuana charge from the remaining three counts. Id.

With this case heading for trial in November, the Government filed a motion in limine to obtain a court ruling as to the admissibility of evidence related to the marijuana grow operation during the trial on the pharmacy robbery and firearms charges. Gov’t’s Mot. in Limine to Admit Intrinsic Evid. (ECF No. 464) (Gov’t’s Mot.). Specifically, the Government seeks to introduce evidence of zip ties that were found in the Stile residence, and were the same type of zip ties the robber used to tie up the hands and feet of the pharmacy owner, three pharmacy employees, and a customer. Id. at 1. In addition, the Government seeks to introduce evidence of the large marijuana grow operation that law enforcement discovered when they searched the house where Mr. Stile’s apartment was located. Id. Mr. Stile objects. Opp’n to Mot. in Limine to Admit Intrinsic Evid. (ECF No. 477) (Def.’s Opp’n).

II. THE FACTS ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT

In its motion, the Government incorporated by reference the facts in its earlier opposition to Mr. Stile’s motion for relief from prejudicial joinder. Gov’t’s Mot. at 1 (citing Gov’t’s Resp. in Opp’n to Def.’s Mots. for Relief from Improper Joinder and to Sever (ECF No. 188) (Gov’t’s Opp’n)). In its opposition, the Government set forth the facts underlying the crimes charged in the indictment. Gov’t’s Opp’n at 1-4.

The Government claims that on September 12, 2011, just before closing at approximately 5:14 p.m., a tall, thin, white male entered E.W. Moore Pharmacy in Bingham, Maine with his head and face covered by a baseball type cap, sunglasses, and a dust mask. The handle of a handgun was visible from his jeans pocket and he took out from his pants what appeared to be a very small sawed-off shotgun. He brandished the shotgun at the owner and the employees and, when a customer entered, he brandished the shotgun at him, too, ordering him behind the counter. The robber ordered the owner to fill a black bag with narcotics and he tied the hands and feet of the customer and three employees. Once the bag was full of drugs, the robber tied the owner as well. All five people in the store were tied with grey and/or white zip ties. The robber fled in a Ford Windstar minivan.

On September 13, 2011, law enforcement obtained a search warrant to search the Defendant’s residence for evidence of the robbery. They found evidence consistent with items of clothing the robber had worn. They also found a large marijuana grow operation in the upstairs part of the residence and they obtained a second search warrant to search the residence for evidence of illegal marijuana production. Law enforcement discovered white and/or grey zip ties in the marijuana grow area of the residence. In its current motion, the Government further explains that the zip ties were holding up marijuana grow lights. Gov’t’s Mot. at 2. Finally, the Government reveals that several days later, pursuant to a third search warrant, law enforcement found a handgun with one round in a briar patch near the Stile house. Id. at 3. The Government acknowledges that the ball cap, sunglasses, sawed-off shotgun, and black bag with the prescriptive drugs were never found. Id.

III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS

A. The Government’s Motion

The Government maintains that evidence of the marijuana grow operation is intrinsic to the crimes charged in counts one through three of the indictment. Gov’t’s Mot. at 1. The Government says that evidence of the zip ties and the marijuana grow “comprise[] part and parcel of the core events undergirding the crime for which [the defendant] was charged.” Id. (quoting United States v. Roszkowski, 700 F.3d 50, 56 (1st Cir. 2012)). It argues that the justification for the severance motion “is unrelated to the issues raised in the present motion.” Id. at 3. In terms of the Rules of Evidence, the Government contends that the evidence is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Id. at 3. Observing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.