CAUSE NO, CR-991 THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE $1* JUDICIAL vs. § DISTRICT COURT OF RAYMOND MERRIL JESSOP § SCHLEICHER eousty, TEXAS SS S8s3 8 7 8 STATE'S MOTION IV LIMINE. & a » ‘TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: a ba COMES NOW the State of Texas and moves the Court to instruct counsel for the Defendant that they and any and all witnesses for the Defendant are not to mention, refer to, make implications regarding, interrogate concerning, or bring to the attention of the jury or the venire in any manner, directly orindirectly, any of the following subjects without having first approached the Court outside of the presence of the jury: 1. The testimony of any expert witness without having first established, outside of the presence of the jury, whether the expert is allowed to testify, and the admissibility of his or her testimony. ‘Texas Rule of Criminal Evidence 104(a) provides that preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness shall be determined by the Court, not the jury. Texas Rule of Evidence 705(b) provides that prior to an expert giving an opinion or disclosing the basis of his. opinion before the jury, the opposing party shall, upon request, be permitted to conduct a voir dire examination directed to the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. This rule further provides that said exemination shall be conducted outside of the presence of the jury. Before 1the Defendant calls an expert witness to testify before the jury, the State requests that it be provided the opportunity to test the qualifications of said expert, determine whether the facts and data upon which he or she relied in forming, an opinion is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in that particular field, and whether said opinion is relevant to the proceedings. In addition, Article39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the discovery of an adverse party's “expert witnesses.” That provision reads as follows: (b) On motion of a party snd on notice to the other parties, the court in which an action is pending may order one or more of the other parties to disclose to the party making the motion the name and adéress of cach person tie other party may use at ‘ial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703, and 705, Texas Rules of Evidence. The court shall specify in the order the time and manner in which the other party must make the disclosure to the moving party, but in specifying the time in which the other party shall make disclosure the court shall require the other party to make the disclosure not later than the 20° day before the date the trial begins. ‘On October 28, 2008, the State filed a motion requesting notice of expert witnesses. 2. Any mention of the Third Court of Appeals decision iia re Steed, 2008 WL 2132014 (Tex. App. ~ Austin 2008), or the litigation leading to or following that decision, as not relevent in the instant criminal prosecution, ‘Neither the Defendant nor any State authority in this proceeding was a relator in In re Steed, and the legal issues in Jn re Steed differ greatly from those before this Court in the instant case. In re Steed is therefore not relevant to this case, Furthermore, the mention of In re Steed in this trial risks confusing or misleading the jury regarding the civil action, as opposed to the eriminal charges against this Defendant. See Tex. R. Evid. 403; Gigliobianco v. State, 210 §.W.3d 637, 641 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). In addition, a judgment in a civil action is inadmissible in a criminal prosecution‘See Coleman v. State, 179 $.W. 1172 (Tex. Crim. App. 1915). 3. Any mention of the actions or inactions of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“DFPS”) and/or Child Protective Services (“CPS”) in pursuing child welfare proceedings, as they are not relevant in the instant criminal case. ‘The actions or inactions of the DFPS and/or CPS proceedings brought under the Texas Family Code are irrclevant to the guiltfinnocence and punishment issues associated with the Defendant. See Tex. R. Evid. 401. Any mention of these Family Code proceedings risks confusing or misleading the jury. See Tex.R. Evid. 403. 4, Any mention of the content of scarch warrants pursuant to which evidence used during the trial ‘was obtained, the probable cause contained therein, or the scope of the warrants, as any such references would be irrelevant to the guilvinnocence and punistunient issues to be tried and would be an attempt to relitigate issues that have already been heard by the Court in the hearing on the Defendant’s motion to suppress. ‘These issues have been previously litigated before this Court, and have no relevance to the any issues to be decided by the jury. Tex. R. Evid. 401, 402. 5, Any mention of Dan Fischer, the Diversity Foundation, Flora Jessop, ot other persons or organizations not called as witnesses but who are claimed to be hostile to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as being not relevant to the criminal case. ‘The existence and views of persons and organizations that are not parties to or witnesses in