United States District Court, D. Minnesota
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. MAGNUSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the Government's Motions in
Punishment (Docket Nos. 43 and 47)
Government first seeks to preclude Gomez-Diaz from making any
references to his possible sentence if convicted. Because it
is not the jury's role to be concerned with any potential
sentence-even when the defendant faces a mandatory-minimum
sentence-this Motion is granted. Gomez-Diaz may not make any
references at trial to his potential punishment if convicted.
Consent (Docket Nos. 44 and 45)
Government seeks to preclude Gomez-Diaz from arguing or
eliciting testimony that the victim consented to the
production of child pornography. Gomez-Diaz does not intend
to raise a consent defense. This Motion is therefore granted.
But nothing about granting this Motion has an effect on
Gomez-Diaz's right to testify about the allegations
against him, including explaining how the sexual conduct took
place, or why and how he took the photographs at issue.
Immigration Status (Docket No. 46)
Government also seeks to preclude Gomez-Diaz from mentioning
or eliciting testimony concerning his, the victim's, or
the victim's family's immigration status. This Motion
is granted because such evidence is irrelevant, confusing,
and prejudicial. Along with prohibiting Gomez-Diaz from
making any references at trial to his potential punishment,
Gomez-Diaz may not make any reference to his possible
deportation following his sentence. Likewise, Gomez-Diaz may
not make any reference to the immigration status of the
victim's sister, Gomez-Diaz's then-girlfriend.
Granting this Motion does not preclude Gomez-Diaz from
testifying about his life history, including where he is from
and how he got here, so long as that information is relevant.
Gomez-Diaz simply may not testify about his immigration
“Made in China” (Docket No. 48)
Government intends to introduce evidence of the inscription
“Made in China” on Gomez-Diaz's phone to
prove that Gomez-Diaz produced or created child pornography
using materials that had been mailed, shipped, or transported
across state lines or in foreign commerce by any means.
Gomez-Diaz does not object to the Government introducing such
evidence. This Motion is granted.
Love Letters (Docket No. 53)
Government seeks to preclude Gomez-Diaz from eliciting
testimony or offering evidence of “love letters”
that he wrote to the victim's sister following his
arrest. The Government argues that these letters are
irrelevant and hearsay. Gomez-Diaz utterly fails to respond
to this Motion. Without knowing what the letters say,
however, the Court cannot decide whether the letters are
irrelevant or hearsay. This Motion is therefore denied
without prejudice to specific objection at trial.
State Charge (Docket No. 56)
Government seeks to preclude Gomez-Diaz from referencing or
eliciting testimony about his pending state-court charge of
criminal sexual conduct stemming from the same allegations
involved in this case. This Motion is granted because such
evidence is irrelevant, confusing, and prejudicial. If
Gomez-Diaz testifies, he may of course address the sexual
contact and testify about whether he feels a responsibility,