USA v. Dowtin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTCOURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
V.
CHRISTOPHER DOWTIN,
Defendant,
Case No. 3:25-CR-32
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING UNITED STATES' MOTION IN
LIMINE TO PROHIBIT SOVEREIGN CITIZEN, JURY NULLIFICATION,
AND MISTAKE OF LAW ARGUMENTS (DOC. #45)
On January 26, 2026, Plaintiff United States of America ("the Government")
filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude Defendant Christopher Dowtin from
making certain arguments before the jury. Doc. #45. On January 29, 2026, the Court
ordered Defendant Christopher Dowtin ("Defendant") to file any responsive brief
he felt necessary by close of business February 5, 2026. Doc. #47. No responsive
brief has been filed by Defendant as of said date and time.
For the reasons stated herein, the Government's Motion in Limine to Prohibit
Sovereign Citizen, Jury Nullification, and Mistake of Law Arguments before the jury,
Doc. #45, is SUSTAINED.
Case: 3:25-cr-00032-WHR Doc #: 51 Filed: 02/06/26 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

I. Legal Standard
Although neither the Federal Rules of Evidence nor the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure explicitly authorizes the Court to rule on an evidentiary motion
in limine, the Supreme Court has noted that the practice of ruling on such motions
"has developed pursuant to the district court's inherent authority to manage the
course of trials. " Luce v. United States, 469 U. S. 38, 41 n. 4 (1984). The purpose of a
motion in limine is to allow the Court to rule on issues pertaining to evidence in
advance of trial in order both to avoid delay and ensure an evenhanded and
expeditious trial. See Indiana Ins. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d 844, 846 (N. D.
Ohio 2004) (citing Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 F. 3d 436, 440
(7th Cir. 1997)). Also, pretrial orders often save the parties time and costs in
preparing for trial and presenting their cases.
Courts are generally reluctant to grant broad exclusions of evidence in limine,
however, because "a court is almost always better situated during the actual trial
to assess the value and utility of evidence. " Koch v. Koch Indus., Inc.. 2 F. Supp. 2d
1385, 1388 (D. Kan. 1998); accord Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F. 2d
708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975). A court should not make a ruling in limine unless the
moving party meets its burden of showing that the evidence in question is clearly
inadmissible. Indiana Ins. Co.. 326 F. Supp. 2d at 846; Koch, 1 F. Supp. 2d at 1388. If
this high standard is not met, evidentiary rulings should be deferred so that the
2
Case: 3:25-cr-00032-WHR Doc #: 51 Filed: 02/06/26 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

issues may be resolved in the context of the trial. Indiana Ins. Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d
at 846.
Relevant evidence is defined under Fed. R. Evid. 401 as "'[Ejvidence having
any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without
the evidence. '" United States v. Whittington, 455 F. 3d 736, 738 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing
Robinson v. Runyon, 149 F. 3d 507, 512 (6th Cir. 1998)). Relevant evidence may not
be excluded "if it has the slightest probative worth" and "'[E]ven if a district court
believes the evidence is insufficient to prove the ultimate point for which it is
offered. " Id. (citation omitted). Under Rule 403, however, "courts may exclude
relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of
one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the
jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."
Fed. R. Evid. 403.
II. Analysis
The Government puts forth three categories of arguments it wishes to
prevent Defendant from presenting to the jury: (1) arguments relating to sovereign
citizen ideology; (2) arguments relating to jury nullification; and (3) arguments
related to a defense based on the premise that Defendant was mistaken as to the
law. Doc. #45, PagelD #160-63.
Case: 3:25-cr-00032-WHR Doc #: 51 Filed: 02/06/26 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

A. Sovereign Citizen Ideology
The Court has already recognized that Defendant appears to adhere to
sovereign citizen ideology. SeeDoc. #35, PagelD#118-22. Individuals who advance
such ideals commonly believe that federal courts have no jurisdiction over them or
that they may opt to have their criminal charges heard under equity. See, e. g.,
United States v. Cook, No. 3:18-cr-19, 2019 WL 2721305 (E. D. Tenn. June 28, 2019);
United States v. Lavigne, No. 21-20355, 2022 WL2276331 (E. D. Mich. June 23, 2022).
These theories have been roundly rejected by every court to which they have been
presented. United States v. Coleman, 871 F. 3d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 2017) (collecting
cases).
The Government specifically asks the Court to
prohibit Defendant from arguing he is a private trust, that the flesh and
blood man was not properly charged, that a commercial entity or utility
was charged, that there is unique meaning to the charging documents
using names in alt capital letters, that he is a trustee or grantor over
the charged entity/utility, that this matter should be resolved in equity,
and that this Court does not have jurisdiction over him.
Doc. #45, PagelD #160. It further argues that those potential arguments, as well as
other ideals commonly associated with the sovereign citizen movement, have no
basis in law and would confuse the jury, meriting exclusion under Fed. R. Evid. 401,
402, and 403. The Court finds the Government's position well taken. Each of these
potential arguments are contrary to prevailing law and are not fit to be argued
Case: 3:25-cr-00032-WHR Doc #: 51 Filed: 02/06/26 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

before a jury. Therefore, the Court SUSTAINS the portion of the Government's
motion relating to sovereign citizen ideology.
B. Jury nullification
The Government also seeks to prevent Defendant from arguing for acquittal
"because he followed a different set of beliefs" or for any reason beyond the facts
and law of the case. Doc. #45, PagelD #162. In effect, it attempts to bar Defendant
from arguing for jury nullification.
As a recent case in this district stated:
Jury nullification is the "unreviewable and unreversible power in the
jury, to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the
trial judge. " United States v. Dougherty, 473 F. 2d 1113, 1132 (D. C. Cir.
1972). The doctrine embraces the idea that the jury may "as a buffer
between the accused and the state . . . reach a verdict despite what
may seem clear [under the] law. " United States v. Krzyske, 836 F. 2d
1013, 1021 (6th Cir. 1988). To that end, the jury supplies "play in the
joints" within our judicial system by providing "a safety valve for
exceptional cases. " Dougherty, 473 F. 2d at 1134.
While juries have the power of nullification, "courts will not encourage
this, provide jury instructions acknowledging it, or allow lawyers to
argue overtly for it. " Wofford v. Woods, 969 F. 3d 685, 709 (6th Cir.
2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1745 (2021). Courts that have considered
whether jury instruction on nullification should be permitted "almost
uniformly held that a criminal defendant" has no such right. United
States v. Trujillo, 714 F. 2d 102, 105-06. (11th Cir. 1983) (collecting
Circuit cases). This view is shared by the Sixth Circuit. Krzyske, 836
F. 2dat1021 ("[W]e are compelled to approve the district court's refusal
to discuss jury nullification with the jury. To have given an instruction
on nullification would have undermined the impartial determination of
justice based on law. ")
Case: 3:25-cr-00032-WHR Doc #: 51 Filed: 02/06/26 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

United States v. Georges, No. 2:20-cv-157(2), 2021 WL 4191223 (S. D. Ohio Sept. 15,
2021) (Marbley, C. J. ). The fact that Defendant is proceeding pro se, rather than
being represented by an attorney, does not alter the fundamental holding: a
criminal defendant may not overtly argue in favor of jury nullification. Therefore,
the Government's motion is SUSTAINED as to jury nullification.
C. Mistake of Law
In its final request, the Government seeks "to prohibit Defendant from
arguing that, by virtue of his beliefs, he was mistaken as to the law. " Doc. #45,
PagelD #163. "The general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no
defense to criminal prosecution is deeply rooted in the American legal system.'
Cheek v. United States, 498 U. S. 192, 199 (1991). Given the extent of the
Government's request, the Court need not go further. Binding precedent makes
clear that Defendant is barred from arguing to the jury or attempting to present
evidence based on the premise that he was mistaken as to the law. The
Government's motion is SUSTAINED.
However, the Court wishes to note one additional issue that relates to the
Defendant's mental state. Defendant is charged with two counts under 18 U. S. C. §
641 (Theft of Government Money, Property, or Records) and four counts under 18
U. S. C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud). Doc. #10. Both statutes are specific intent statutes.
United States v. Daniel, 329 F. 3d 480, 487 (6th Cir. 2003) (wire fraud); United States
Case: 3:25-cr-00032-WHR Doc #: 51 Filed: 02/06/26 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

v. Stephens-Miller, 582 F. App'x 626, 636 (6th Cir. 2014) (Theft). Therefore, at trial,
the Government will be required to prove that Defendant knowingly acted in
violation of the relevant statutes. Stephens-Miller, 582 F. App'x at 638; Daniel, 329
F. 3d at 487.
Given this. Defendant must be given the opportunity, if he so chooses, to
argue that he lacked the requisite intent. This defense, premised on the argument
that if he undertook the alleged actions, he did so because of mistake or accident
or other innocent reason, would be considered a defense based on mistake of fact,
not mistake of law. However, to be successful, a valid mistake of fact defense must
be based upon "an honest and reasonable belief" in facts which, if true, would
negate the requisite mental state. 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 148.
"[U]nreasonabte ignorance cannot be a defense. " Id.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the United States' Motion in Limine to Prohibit
Sovereign Citizen, Jury Nullification, and Mistake of Law Arguments, Doc. #45, is
SUSTAINED.
Date: February 6, 2026 k. v~
WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 3:25-cr-00032-WHR Doc #: 51 Filed: 02/06/26 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>