Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:11-cr-00718_de95> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 3 of
3
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:11-cr-00718_de95 RegisterActionDate "2014-06-09" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cr-00718_de95 RegisterActionDescriptionText "Enter ORDER as to Jason Palomino: The Government has moved in limine to admit the Joliet Police dispatch call associated with the incident underlying the prosecution (Dkt. No. 84). The Defendant did not file a response to the Governments motion, but stated in open court that he agrees that the police officers statements heard on the recording are admissible as present sense impressions. However, the Defendant objects to including the dispatchers responses to the police officers statements. Because the dispatchers responses provide context to the officers statements on the recording and their inclusion causes no additional prejudice to the Defendant, the Governments motion is granted.The Government has moved to admit the first ninety seconds of a Joliet Police dispatch recording and accompanying transcript. The Defendant conceded that the statements made by the police officers while in pursuit of the suspects fall within the present sense impression exception to the rule against hearsay. See United States v. Ruiz, 249 F.3d 643, 646 (7th Cir. 2001) (under present sense exception to hearsay rule, police officer could testify to descriptions of and aspects taken by suspect relayed to him by fellow officer through walkie-talkie). Instead, the Defendant objects to the inclusion of the dispatchers replies to the officers statements. Statements made by police dispatchers are routinely admitted because they provide context to the statements made by callers or officers. See United States v. Boyce, 742 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2014) (dispatchers questions posed to 911 caller properly admitted); United States v. Thomas, 453 F.3d 838, 844 (7th Cir. 2006) (same); United States v. Joy, 192 F.3d 761, 765 (7th Cir. 1999) (recording and transcript of conversation between 911 caller and dispatcher were properly admitted); see, e.g. United States v. Campbell, 782 F. Supp. 1258, 1261-62 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (conversation between police officer and citywide dispatcher admitted). Similarly, here, the dispatch responses provide context for the actions taken and the statements made by the responding officers. Redacting the dispatch statements would create a disjointed recording and transcript that would not present the temporal context of the pursuit. Because the dispatch responses help paint the entire picture of the officers pursuit, they are admitted.Accordingly, the Governments motion in limineto admit the Joliet Police dispatch call is granted. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 6/9/2014.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/09/2014)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cr-00718_de95 AdministrativeID "93" @default.