USA v. Kane et al

Filing 267

Order on Motion in Limine

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROBERT F. KANE, and
SECURITY AVIATION, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:06-cr-00022 JWS
ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
[Re: Motions at 184 and 203]

At docket 184, defendant Robert F. Kane (“Kane”) asks the court to preclude any
testimony from government witness Gary Schaible (Schaible). Kane contends that the
United States plans to call Schaible as an expert witness to testify that the rocket
launchers Security purchased had to be registered, even though Schaible has not been
disclosed as an expert witness and did not even examine the rocket launchers. Kane
also objects to testimony about the registration of rocket launchers by other persons or
entities.
At docket 203, defendant Security Aviation, Inc. (“Security”) moves for an order
precluding testimony from Schaible that rocket launchers, other than those purchased
by Security, have been registered. Security does not object to any other aspect of what
it understands will be Schaible’s testimony.
The government filed a combined response at docket 263, which is under seal.
In its response, the United States explains that it will not elicit expert testimony from
Schaible regarding whether the rocket launchers purchased by Security were required
to be registered. Rather, it will call him only to provide a testamentary vehicle for setting

out for the jury’s consideration the regulations which govern the registration of certain
firearms.
Upon reviewing the United States’ letter replying to correspondence from
defense counsel attached in support of the motion at docket 184, the court concludes
that Kane’s motion was an overreaction. What the United States now says will be
Schaible’s testimony is entirely consistent with the description given in the
correspondence. Most importantly, that testimony does not touch upon the primary
concern articulated in the motion at docket 184.
In its response at docket 263, the United States also has indicated that it will not
elicit any testimony from Schaible respecting registration of rocket launchers by others.
This moots the only concern raised by Security and the remaining concern raised by
Kane. Given the limited nature of the testimony which will actually be elicited from
Schaible, the motions at dockets 184 and 203 appear to be tilting at windmills.
For the reasons above, the motions at dockets 184 and 203 are DENIED as
moot.
DATED this 14th day of May 2006 at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/
JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE