When a person is charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, evidentiary disputes often determine what information a jury will hear at trial. Motions in limine, requests made before trial to admit or exclude evidence, can significantly shape the outcome of the case. A recent decision from a Florida court illustrates how federal courts apply the rules of evidence in firearm prosecutions. If you are facing federal firearm charges, it is critical to have a Sarasota criminal defense attorney who understands how evidentiary rulings can impact your case and protect your rights before trial.
Factual and Procedural Background
Allegedly, the defendant was stopped by law enforcement while driving a vehicle. During the stop, officers discovered a firearm in the car. It is reported that the defendant, who had multiple prior felony convictions, including armed robbery and burglary, was charged with possession of a firearm or ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of federal law. The case was set for trial, and before the proceedings began, the defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude several categories of evidence that he argued would unfairly prejudice the jury.
It is alleged that the defendant requested the court to prohibit the government from referencing six main types of evidence: (1) a prior case connected to the vehicle’s license plate, (2) a black duffel bag and its contents, (3) a red bookbag found in the vehicle, (4) the criminal history and drug charges of a passenger, (5) an observation of a bulge in the defendant’s waistband before the stop, and (6) the defendant’s probationary status and broader criminal history. The prosecution agreed not to introduce some categories of evidence but opposed the exclusion of others that it believed were relevant to the firearm charge.
Grounds for Excluding Evidence in Florida Criminal Matters
It is reported that the district court first addressed the defendant’s request to exclude evidence of his probation status and criminal history. The prosecution agreed that such information would be excluded, except for a stipulation acknowledging that the defendant was a convicted felon, a necessary element of the firearm charge. The court also ruled that the defendant’s criminal history could become admissible for impeachment if he chose to testify, in accordance with Federal Rule of Evidence 609. The court explained that this rule allows prior felony convictions to be used to assess credibility, provided the probative value outweighs any unfair prejudice.
The court next considered whether to exclude evidence related to the vehicle’s passenger, who had an outstanding warrant and pending narcotics charges. The defendant argued that her criminal history and unrelated drug charges were irrelevant to his case. The government partially agreed, acknowledging that the passenger’s drug-related charges should generally be excluded. However, prosecutors maintained that her legal status might become relevant if the defense suggested that she, not the defendant, possessed the firearm. The court ruled that evidence concerning the passenger’s criminal background would be excluded unless it became relevant through the defense’s own arguments or if the passenger testified, in which case her prior convictions could be used for impeachment under Rule 609.
Lastly, it is alleged that the defendant sought to exclude testimony from an officer who observed a bulge in his waistband before the stop, arguing that the officer lacked sufficient personal knowledge to conclude that the bulge was a firearm. The court disagreed, finding that the officer’s observation was admissible lay testimony under Rules 602 and 701. The court explained that the officer’s testimony was based on direct perception and professional experience, and that identifying a bulge consistent with the shape of a firearm did not require specialized or expert knowledge. The court also held that this evidence was highly probative of possession, the central issue at trial, and that its value was not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
Talk to a Skilled Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney Today
Pretrial motions and evidentiary rulings can profoundly affect the course of a criminal case. Knowing how to challenge prejudicial or irrelevant evidence before it reaches the jury can be the difference between conviction and acquittal. The experienced Florida criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law understand how to navigate complex evidentiary issues and protect your rights at every stage of the process. If you are facing a firearm or other serious criminal charge, contact our Sarasota office at 941-462-1789 or complete our online form to schedule a confidential consultation today.