The DA's office *really* doesn't want me to be able to put on any defense. For example, if this is granted, the Pettycrews could not testify at all because the incident where the golden era scientology work crew ran away from them, abandoning their wheelbarrow of wet concrete to harden, happened when I was not there. Of course, it is relevant since the Pettycrew "victims" ran and from 1st Amendment protected picket signs--same as they ran and hid from my signs. It is interesting that the "state of mind" of the "victim" is the only element in "creating a crime." Wow. If that were actually the case, ghod knows *I* have enough reason to be in fear and I have certainly had to alter my routines to deal with clam PIs around every corner. Anyone know a reporters who would be interested? Keith Henson Grover Trask District Attorney County of Riverside 910 N. State St. Hemet, CA 92543 Telephone: (909) 766-2370 State Bar No.202293 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (Hemet) 'IHE PEOPI F OF THE STATE OF California, CASE NO: IIEM014371 Plaintiff, MOTION IN LIMINE to EXCLUDE AND/OR LIMIT V, Testimony OF KATHLEEN PETTYCREW, BRUCE, LI. KEITH HENSON, PETTYCREW, BARBARA GRAHAM (AKA WARR) Defendant. BRENT STONE AND AREL LUCAS The People object to and move in limine to limit and confine the testimony of Kathleen Pettycrew, Bruce Pettycrew, Barbara Graham (aka Warr), Brent Stone and Arel Lucas proffered by the defendant. To avoid wasting time and to confine the testimony of such witnesses to their personal knowledge of facts relevant to the charges being prosecuted the People seek an order, before jury selection or the commencement of trial, either excluding their testimony entirely, or limiting it to their personal knowledge of events observed at Golden Era Productions when they were physically present at the premises with the defendant. I. INTRODUCTION Like the defendant, Keith Henson, Kathleen Pettycrew, Bruce Pettycrew, Barbara Graham (aka Warr), Brent Stone, and Arel Lucas have all picketed in front of Golden Productions (“Golden Era"). The defendant has announced his intention to present them as witnesses to things beyond their personal perceptions; for them to speculate about the mind of persons they have never met, and to address matters irrelevant to any issue concerning the charges brought against the defendant. As shown below, testimony by any such witness should be strictly limited by notions of relevance and first-hand knowledge framed by the charges against the defendant Accordingly, this motion in limine seeks to limit their testimony strictly and exclusively to their first-hand knowledge obtained as picketers at Golden Era when the defendant was present with them, and then only to matters relevant to the charges against the defendant should be granted. II STATEMENT OF FACTS The complaint charges the defendant with violating Penal Code 422, 644/422 and 422.6 in that the defendant made terrorist threats against members of the Scientology at golden Era, both through the use of the Internet, as well as threatening actions against these individuals on a virtually continuous basis during several months in 2000. Each of the five proposed witnesses who are the subject of this motion Kathleen Pettycrew, Bruce Pettycrew, Brent Stone, Barbara Graham (aka Warr), and Arel Lucas (the wife of the defendant) have demonstrated on their own outside of Golden Era. Some have on occasions also appeared at that site with the defendant. Evidently, these witnesses are prepared to speculate about the state of mind of the individuals whom the defendant has criminally threatened and to vent animosity toward Scientology and Scientologists they share with the defendant. For the sake of judicial efficiency and to avoid a climate of prejudice, the speculations of angry witnesses and their statements about matters not relevant to the charges should have no place in these proceedings III DISCUSSION A. The Proffered Testimony of These Witnesses is irrelevant and speculative and Therefore Inadmissible Under Evidence Code  350. Except as provided by statute, no evidence is admissible except relevant evidence California Evidence Code, 350 Relevant evidence is evidence "having, any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact," Evidence Code, 210 While the trial court is vested with wide discretion in determining the relevance of evidence, it "has no discretion to admit irrelevant evidence." People v. Babbitt (1988)45 Cal.3d 660, 681, 248 Cal.Rptr 69, 79 People v. Poggi (1988) 45 Cal 3d 306, 246 Cal.Rptr 886 If proffered evidence is not relevant to any disputed material issue that is framed by the criminal charges against the defendant, that evidence is irrelevant and Evidence Code 350 compels its exclusion Similarly, testimony that produces only "speculative inferences is irrelevant evidence." Babbitt, supra, at 682. This is particularly true when, as here and as in Babbitt the speculation offered as evidence is to the state of mind of others. None of these witnesses can be heard to testify as to facts they did not perceive or what thoughts might have been present in the mind of others based on their actions. That is why the Babbitt court and many other court reject “clearly speculative" testimony and speculative influences as irrelevant, and it is that standard that should prompt this Court to limit carefully the testimony of these witnesses to relevant, first-hand knowledge pertaining to the charges against the defendant. ********footnote I It appears the defendant intends to use these witnesses to cast doubt on the fact the victims were genuinely in fear of the defendant and that due to the fear the victims altered their daily work routines at Golden Era in an effort to protect themselves against him. *************** Here, as in Babbitt and Poggi, the evidence that the defendant seeks to introduce through the five proposed witnesses that the Golden Era staff reacted to *their* picketing a certain way even arguendo if taken as true, has absolutely no relevance to any material issues raised by the 422, 664/422 and 422.6 charges against the defendant and whether or not the victims felt threatened by the defendant's actions and statements. That testimony has no tendency in reason" to prove or disprove any of the elements of the charges against the defendant or to prove or disprove any of the elements of his defense and by its very nature is so "clearly speculative" that it could only, as in Babbitt, produce "speculative inferences” expressly prohibited under 350 B. 'The Proposed Witnesses Have No Personal Knowledge Of The Matter Here And Therefore Their Proffered Testimony Is Inadmissible. "The testimony of a witness concerning a particular matter is inadmissible unless he (or she) has personal knowledge of the matter." Evidence Code 702(a) Upon objection the court may not admit a witness' testimony without proof of such personal knowledge evidence Code 702(b) The proposed witnesses, except Graham (aka Warr), have no personal knowledge concerning the elements of the crimes with which the defendant is charged. Several of the witnesses were present during a fraction of the defendant's terrorist threat activity, but none were a direct witness to the totality of his criminal conduct. Clearly none were privy to the mental states of those whom the defendant threatened.2 *******footnote 2 The People note that one of these witnesses -- Barbara Warr -- was a joint actor, was physically present and participated with the defendant and another person in taking (Global Positioning System coordinates of Golden Era (later posted on the Internet), and in posting threats against Golden Era staff to the Internet. ************* However, fringe participation in related events or occasional interaction with the defendant with respect to related conduct does not create first-hand knowledge of facts relevant to the adjudication of these criminal charges and plainly does not issue a license to speculate. Section 702 is the fence that keeps "such guesswork, fueled by hostility toward the targets of the crimes, from poisoning the jury with irrelevancies and potential prejudices that arise from conjecture, speculation, and the substitution of purposeful guesswork for relevant first-hand, personal knowledge. Thus, the testimony of these five witnesses must be carefully limited to matters personally known them that are directly relevant to the material issues framed by the charges IV, CONCLUSION The testimony of proposed witnesses Kathleen Pettycrew, Bruce Pettycrew, Brent Stone, Barbara Graham (aka Warr) and Arel Lucas must be strictly limited to relevant, material issues raised by the charges against the defendant under Penal Code 422, 664/422 and 422.6 their speculations and conjectures unrelated to these issues must be excluded. Dated: March 9, 2001 Respectfully submitted, GROVER TRASK II DISTRICT ATTORNEY (signed) ROBERT K. SCHWARZ Deputy District Attorney