United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
ORDER ON MOTIONS HEARING
KRISTI
K. DuBOSE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The
Court held a hearing on May 6, 2019 to address multiple
pending motions in this criminal case. Those present for the
hearing included Defendants Mack Doak and Jaycee Doak,
Defendants' counsel Latisha Colvin and Joe Carl Jordan,
and Assistant United States Attorneys Sinan Kalayoglu,
Katherine Chappelear, and Maria E. Murphy. This Order
summarizes the Court's decisions announced during the
hearing.
Daubert
Motions
Both
Defendants challenged two of the Government's proposed
expert witnesses, Jane Agee and Janetta Michaels. (Docs.
68-71). During the hearing, the Government reiterated that it
anticipates Agee will testify primarily as a fact witness.
The Court stated that Agee will be permitted to testify as a
fact witness, but that she could not testify to her
conclusions in the case. The Court denied the
Daubert motions challenging Michaels, with leave to
renew the motions before Michaels'
testimony.[1]The Daubert motions are
DENIED.
Government's
Two Motions in Limine
The
Government filed two motions in limine. The first is an
omnibus motion in limine that addresses 17 separate matters.
In general, both Defendants responded that they would comply
with relevant Court and evidentiary rules. The Court
addressed three issues in particular that the motion raised.
Aside from the matters addressed in the hearing related to
this motion, the motion (Doc. 75) is MOOT.
The
second is a motion in limine to exclude Defendants from
making any reference to the victims' sexual behavior or
predisposition, pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 412. Defendant Mack
Doak's counsel responded that she would comply. The
Government's second motion in limine (Doc. 77) is
GRANTED.
Government's
Motions for Pretrial Rulings on Admissibility
The
Government filed two motions for pretrial rulings on
admissibility. The first concerns videos of Victims 1-3 being
forensically interviewed. Because a victim's testimony
controls whether a certain video may be admissible under the
evidentiary rules the Government cited, the motion for a
pretrial ruling on admissibility (Doc. 76) is CARRIED
TO TRIAL.
The
second motion pertained to four specific business records for
which the Government sought the Court's preliminary
determination that the records are authentic. For the
purposes of showing the records are kept by the entities, the
Government need not call a custodian to testify. The motion
(Doc. 114) is GRANTED as explained on the
record. However, this ruling does not address Defendants'
other objections related to the Facebook records, such as the
Bruton objection Defendants raised. The Government
was instructed to select, identify, and file with the
Court-on or before Monday, May 13-the specific Facebook
records it intends to introduce to permit the Court to
consider the other objections Defendants' counsel raised.
Jaycee
Doak's Third Motion In Limine
Jaycee
Doak's third motion in limine sought to preclude the
Government “from introducing or making any reference to
child pornography.” (Doc. 109). The Court noted that it
will provide a limiting instruction (assuming Jaycee
Doak's counsel requests one) to the jury that any and all
references to child pornography should not be considered
against Jaycee Doak. The motion in limine to prohibit all
references to child pornography during trial (Doc. 109) is
DENIED.
Jaycee
Doak's Fourth and Fifth Motions in
Limine/Government's 404(b) and 404(b), 413, and 414
Notices
Jaycee
Doak's fourth motion in limine concerns the
Government's 404(b) Notice. In the Notice, the Government
announced its intent to introduce evidence of Jaycee and Mack
Doak's prior physical abuse of the victims in an effort
to explain the victims' delayed reporting. The evidence
includes general maltreatment and testimony of the disparate
treatment of the adopted and biological children. The Court
held that the Government is prohibited from introducing
evidence of Jaycee Doak's alleged physical abuse of the
children until further consideration by the Court. However,
the Government is permitted to introduce evidence of Mack
...