IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JOHN S. LA TOUR Plaintiff
v. File Number: 02-5001
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Defendant
PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION IN LIMINE
In support of his Motion in Limine, John S. La Tour would state and allege as follows:
1. That Mr. La Tour was issued a criminal summons for violation of the Fayetteville Sign Ordinance during June 16,2000 through June 29, 2000.
2. That Mr. La Tour prays that any testimony and evidence pertaining to the functioning of the sign, the sign itself, or the messages displayed on the sign in question prior to June 16, 2000 be excluded as they are not relevant and would likely serve to confuse the jury. Indeed, Plaintiff was issued a criminal summons ONL Y for a time period where he was displaying only non- commercial messages. Thus any evidence addressing the content of the sign prior to June 16,2000 should be excluded as irrelevant.
3. That any statements regarding the treatment of the said sign on Mr. La Tour's income tax return should be excluded as they are not relevant to the issues at hand and would likely cloud the issue and confuse the jury. In all of the sign cases we examined, all the authorities agreed that the one and only determining factor used to distinguish between commercial and noncommercial signs was the messages displayed, not the treatment of a sign's cost on the owner's tax return.
4. That "the accused does not have an unfettered right to offer testimony that is incompetent, privileged, or otherwise inadmissible under standard rules of evidence." Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 413 (1988). Evidence that is unrelated to the charges in the summons is irrelevant and should be excluded. Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, evidence is relevant only if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable. The probable nature of evidence prior to June 16, 2000 is far outweighed by its tendency to confuse the jury and its irrelevance. Furthermore, "A defendant's interest in presenting such evidence may thus 'bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the '" trial process.'" US. v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 (1998) (quoting Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 55) 2711
Wherefore, premises considered, Mr. La Tour prays that the testimony of witnesses and evidence be excluded or limited as requested above.
Respectfully
submitted,
JOHN S. LA TOUR
May 5, 2003
JOHN S. LA TOUR
Certified Public Accountant
112 Center Street, Suite 560
Fayetteville, AR 72701