United States of America v. Approximately $299,873.70 seized from a Bank of America Account et al

Filing 251

ORDER denying at this time 216 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 217 Motion in Limine; granting 218 Motion in Limine; Carrying to Trial 219 Motion in Limine; finding as moot 220 Motion in Limine. Signed by Chief Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 10/12/2019. (khc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
APPROXIMATELY $299,873.70 seized
from a Bank of America Account, ending
in the number 5538 held by an individual
identified as P.Q., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 16-00545-KD-N

ORDER
The United States filed five motions in limine (docs. 216, 217, 218, 219, and 220).
Claimants Qiang Xu, Shao Ling, and Yonghong Qiu filed a response to motions in limine # 1 and 3
(docs. 225, 226). Claimants Wei Hong, Ze Dai, Quinlong Zhai, Zhang Xindong, Hongtu Chen,
Linlin Guo, Jinmei Dong, and Jiandong Wang filed a response to motion in limine #1 (doc. 223).
Claimants Ze Dai, Linlin Guo, Xindong Zhang, and Jiandong Wang filed a response to motion in
limine # 2 (doc. 224) and Claimant Ling Shao adopted their response (doc. 227).
Upon consideration, and for reasons more specifically set forth on the record, the Court
makes the following rulings on the United States’ motions in limine:
1) The motion in limine to preclude hearsay statements of non-testifying coconspirators (doc. 216) is denied at this time. The Court may revisit the issue of
admissibility when the statements are offered at trial.
2) The motion in limine to preclude comments regarding Claimants’ absence from
trial, or in the alternative to allow rebuttal (doc. 217) is granted in part. The
absent Claimants’ counsel are limited to comment that the Claimants were denied
a visa and therefore could not attend the trial.

3) The motion in limine to exclude documents in Mandarin that are not
accompanied by a certified English translation (doc. 218) is granted.
4) The motion in limine to exclude testimony regarding Claimants’ reasons for
seeking immigration visas to the United States (doc. 219) is carried to trial.
5) The motion in limine to exclude testimony and evidence regarding Defendant
Funds forfeited by the United States (doc. 220) is moot. Claimants stated that
they did not intend to use this evidence at trial.

DONE and ORDERED this the 10th day of October 2019.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2