UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

*************************
* *
* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA*
* *
* v. * 07-CR-0189-03-GZS
* *
* CIRINO GONZALEZ *
* *
*************************

MOTION IN LIMINE/FIREARMS-EXPLOSIVES

NOW COMES the defendant, Cirino Gonzalez, by counsel, David H. Bownes, and

respectfully requests that this Court order that the government may not use the actual firearms,

explosive devices, and pipe bombs as evidence in this matter.

As grounds for this request it is stated:

1. The defendant is charged with Conspiracy to Commit Offenses Against the United

States (18 U.S.C. § 371); Accessory After the Fact (18 U.S.C. § 3); and Carrying and Possessing

a Firearm in Connection with a Crime of Violence (18 U.S.C. § 924 ( c ) (1) (A) (I).

2. The defendant had previously filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars for the firearms

allegedly possessed by Mr. Gonzalez and requested that the government specify which firearm it

would prove with respect to the 924 (c) count.

3. The Court, by Order, denied that request.

4. In addition, Mr. Gonzalez had filed a Motion In Limine with respect to explosive

devices found at the Brown residence in September and October of 2007.

5. The Court ruled that the proper jury instruction would address the issue of how that

evidence may be viewed by the jury.

 6. While the defendant continues to disagree and asserts that in fact that the explosive

devices are highly prejudicial and the spill over effect is incurable, there remains the issue of

how the government may prove the firearms charge with respect to Mr. Gonzalez and the

explosive charges with respect to the defendants, Gerhard and Riley.

7. It is submitted that the government intends to introduce into evidence the actual

firearms and innumerable firearms. Many of the firearms are simply not relevant to Mr.

Gonzalez’s charges and certainly the explosive devices as the government has conceded is not

relevant to Mr. Gonzalez’s charges.

8. It is submitted that as long as the parties agree (the defendant submits that the parties

do agree) that photographs of the particular weapons, explosive devices and numerous other

evidentiary items are, in fact what they are represented to be, there is no need to introduce the

actual weapons and/or explosive devices.

9. In fact, the only purpose for introducing the weapons themselves or showing them to

the jury can only be to inflame the jury on a theory that the demonstration of those weapons is

now necessary to further the government’s case in chief.

10. It is submitted that the use of the firearms in a manner that the government intends is

in fact highly prejudicial and likely to infuse the jury with prejudicial considerations not relevant

to the jury’s consideration of the elements of the crimes charged.

11. It is submitted that the use of the actual evidentiary items themselves improperly

sway the jury in terms of the consideration of the facts and infuses it’s deliberations with

improper, irrelevant considerations. See F.R.E. 404 (b).

12. The government objects to this motion.

13. It is believed that defendant Riley and defendant Gerhard assent to this motion

through counsel.
 14. No memorandum is filed at this time. However, a memorandum with respect to it’s

admissibility will be filed together with the objections to the government’s witness list and

exhibits.

WHEREFORE the defendant requests that this Court grant said relief and for such

further relief as may be just.

Respectfully Submitted,
Cirino Gonzalez,
By His Attorney,

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. BOWNES, P.C.

Dated: March 18, 2008 /S/ David H. Bownes, Esq.

David H. Bownes, Esq.
NH Bar No.: 277
486 Union Avenue
Laconia, NH 03246
(603) 524-4330
office@dhblaw.net

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that on this 18th day of March, 2008 that a copy of the foregoing Motion
In Limine/Firearms-Explosives has been forwarded to Arnold Huftalen, Esq., United States
Attorney’s Office, Paul Garrity, Esq, Stanley Norkunas, Esq. and to Sven Wiberg, Esq. via ECF.

/S/ David H. Bownes, Esq.

David H. Bownes, Esq.