U.S. v. Hamzeh

Dist. Ct. abused its discretion in entering pre-trial orders that denied portion of government’s motion in limine seeking to admit excerpts of informant’s recorded conversations with defendant to counter defendant’s entrapment claim in prosecution on charge of illegal possession of machine guns, where said conversations concerned defendant’s statements indicating that he wanted to use said machine guns to carry out certain acts of terrorism. Said conversations were relevant, where defendant’s stated intent to commit attack, even when uttered long time ago, made it more likely that he was predisposed to obtain instant machine guns. Dist. Ct. also erred in finding that defendant’s motive to possess machine guns was irrelevant, since said motive made element of possession more probable. Fact that defendant would concede possession of guns at trial did not require different result, since relevant evidence remains so, even if it is directed to undisputed fact. Also, government should be able to introduce evidence regarding ability to obtain machine gun parts if defendant introduces evidence that machine guns are rare and expensive. Moreover, on remand, Dist. Ct. should consider admissibility of above evidence under Rule 403 unfair prejudice standard.