STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-679
Plaintiff
v.
Nikkatsa
Defendant
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE
COME NOW, The State, by and through its undersigned State Attorney, submits a response to the Motion to
Strike introduced by the defense before the court on the date of 6 November 2022, filed pursuant to Rid. R.
Evid. 12. A Memorandum-In-Law will be attached below.
MEMORANDUM-IN-LAW
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The State has placed Exhibit B in their Mandated Discovery Turnover. Exhibit B indicates the
defendant’s avatar on the date of the events. The screenshot has a valid timestamp included, specifically
7 August, 2022. It indicates the defendant’s avatar using the ROBLOX feature to view such.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
I. The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the
issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
cumulative evidence. See Rid. R. Evid. 12
II. Evidence can be authenticated by Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge. See Rid. R.
Evid. 54(b)(1)
III. Task of evidentiary authentication can be accomplished in a number of ways—with
testimony from someone with knowledge of the evidence offered, for example, or by
pointing to distinctive characteristics that establish authenticity; some items, however, are
self-authenticating and require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be
admitted. See United States v. Dunnican, 961 F.3d 859 (6th Cir. 2020)
IV. In order to meet authentication requirement for admissibility, proponent of the evidence
is not required to rule out all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity, or to prove
beyond any doubt that the evidence is what it purports to be; rather, a court may find
proper authentication merely upon a showing that a reasonable juror could find in favor
of authenticity or identification. See CA, Inc. v. Simple.com, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 2d 196
(E.D.N.Y. 2009)
V. When weighing factors under rule authorizing court to exclude relevant evidence if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice, courts must
appraise genuine need for challenged evidence and balance that necessity against risk of
prejudice to defendant. See United States v. Claxton, 766 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2014)
VI. In weighing the probative value of the evidence against the prospects of unfair prejudice,
courts must give the evidence its maximum reasonable probative force and its minimum
reasonable prejudicial value. See United States v. Merritt, 961 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2020)
VII. Under rule excluding relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed
by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay,
wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence the trial court must weigh the
proffered evidence's probative value against its potential for unfair prejudice; it is only
unfair prejudice, substantially outweighing probative value, which permits exclusion of
relevant matter. See Leon v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 313 F.R.D. 615 (D.N.M.
2016)
VIII. The rationale for the authentication of evidence requirement is that the evidence is
viewed as irrelevant unless the proponent of the evidence can show that the evidence is
what its proponent claims. See United States v. Draine, 26 F.4th 1178 (10th Cir. 2022)
ARGUMENT
EVIDENCE HAS PROBATIVE VALUE AND CAN BE AUTHENTICATED
The scope of this exhibit is not to prove the defendant’s character trait. Its scope is to properly identify
the defendant, that he undertook the actions he is being accused of, and diminish any potential
misunderstanding. Therefore, probative value outweighs unfair prejudice. Therefore, having specified
what the scope of the exhibit is, it has met the rationale for authentication. See United States v. Draine,
26 F.4th 1178 (10th Cir. 2022).
The defense, in their motion to strike, has cited that “Evidence, in general, must be authenticated before
it can be introduced.”, citing Lopez v. United States. The complete citation would be “A mechanical
recording is not evidence that is merely repetitive or corroborative of human testimony. To be sure, it
must be authenticated before it can be introduced. See Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 448, 83 S.
Ct. 1381, 1392, 10 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1963). Exhibit B does not pertain to a mechanical recording.
Furthermore, the mechanical recording that the citation is making reference to is one of a conversation,
which makes the defense’s citation of this case sparingly useful to sustain their claim of evidence
authentication before trial. “Therein does a mechanical recording of a conversation differ fundamentally
from, for example, notes that one of the parties to the conversation may have taken. See Lopez v. United
States, 373 U.S. 427, 448, 83 S. Ct. 1381, 1393, 10 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1963).
The State intends to call a lay witness to testimony, who will authenticate the screenshot. The Court can
find authenticating elements to the screenshot in and of itself, in order to admit the evidence before the
trial. See United States v. Dunnican, 961 F.3d 859 (6th Cir. 2020)
CONCLUSION
Due to the aforementioned reasons, the court should deny the defense’s motion to strike Exhibit B and allow it
to stand as part of the State’s discovery.
Respectfully Submitted,
Senior Attorney ShaunMFitzalan
Crininal Division
State of Ridgeway Department of Justice
ShaunMFitzalan, shaun#4038
