Case Of Fitzgerald V. Lawrence

The Defendant James Lawrence flies this Motion in Limine under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403, and 801(d)(1)(A) to admit evidence of Gale Fitzgerald’s prior drug use.
FACTS
On July 1, 2016, Gale Fitzgerald was working late. After work she was subject to assault and theft. She identified her attacker as a white man, approximately 5’8 to 5’10 in height, and 160-175 pounds. On July 15, 2016 the State charged Mr. Lawrence with the assault and theft of Ms. Fitzgerald. On July 16, 2016, Ms. Fitzgerald identified Mr. Lawrence form a photo lineup based on the tattoo on Mr. Lawrence’s right arm. Recently, Mr. Blauer Whistler approached the Parties with information about Ms. Fitzgerald. Mr. Whistler was a paralegal who worked with and dated

Fitzgerald’s prior drug causes her to become forgetful. At the end of 2017 she received a poor performance review brought on by being forgetful and making carless mistakes because of her drug use. Ms. Fitzgerald would take too many pills when her work load was overwhelming. Similarly, Ms. Fitzgerald was working late on July 1, 2016 and her police report described the attacker’s height and weight but not his tattoo; a fact that she later gave in her July 16, 2016 statement. The similarities tend to make it more probable that, just as she was forgetful in 2017 because she was taking medication due to of stress, she was forgetful in 2016 for working

Any evidence that decides a person’s guilt should be considered and does not cause undue delay. Originally the trial would have taken four court days, with the new evidence, it will take five court days; factoring in emails and text messages between Mr. Whistler and Ms. Fitzgerald. An additional court day, when a man’s freedom is on the line, is not a significant amount of time.
Third, the probative value of the evidence is high. The connection between her drug use and impacting her memory is substantial because it relates to her identification abilities. Ms. Fitzgerald’s case completely revolves around her ability to accurately identify her assailant. Any impact with regards to her memory is highly probative to the outcome of the case.
On balance, the probative value of evidence of Ms. Fitzgerald’s drug use is extremely high and substantially outweighs any risk of either unfair prejudice or undue delay.
IV. MS. FITZGERALD’S PRIOR DURG US IS EXEMPT FROM THE PROHIBITON ON HEARSAY UNDER RULE