USA v. Dowtin et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
V.
CHRISTOPHER DOWTIN &
BONDARY MCCALL,
Defendants,
Case No. 3:25-CR-80
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING UNITED STATES' MOTION IN
LIMINETO PROHIBITJURY NULLIFICATIONAND MISTAKE OF
LAW ARGUMENTS (DOC. #98) AND ADDRESSING SOVEREIGN
CITIZEN ARGUMENTS
On February 9, 2026, Plaintiff United States of America ("the Government")
filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude Defendants Christopher Dowtin
("Dowtin") and Bondary McCall ("McCall") (collectively "Defendants") from
making certain arguments before the jury. Doc. #98. For the reasons stated herein,
the Government's Motion in Limine to Prohibit Jury Nullification and Mistake of
Law Arguments1 before the jury, Doc. #98, is SUSTAINED.
1 The title of the motion does not include their attempt to limit Defendants' arguments
relating to sovereign citizen ideology. However, the text of the motion discusses that topic
and the Court rules upon it in this Decision.
Case: 3:25-cr-00080-WHR Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/17/26 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, 2 F. Supp. 2d at 1388. If
this high standard is not met, evidentiary rulings should be deferred so that the
Case: 3:25-cr-00080-WHR Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/17/26 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 Defendants were mistaken as to the
law. Doc. #98, PagelD #558-62.
Case: 3:25-cr-00080-WHR Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

A. Sovereign Citizen Ideology
The Court has already recognized that Defendants appear to adhere to
sovereign citizen ideology. 5eeDoc. #61, PagelD#302-06. 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 WL 2276331 (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 Defendants from arguing they are private trusts, 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 all capital letters, that he/they are 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. #98, PagelD #559. 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.
Case: 3:25-cr-00080-WHR Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

The Government also notes that as part of establishing the elements of the
offense to which Defendants are charged, it may elicit testimony about "certain
ideologies. " Doc. #98, PagelD #560. For example, to establish that Defendants filed
a false lien, they will need to discuss and prove that they filed the relevant UCC
statements. However, the Government seeks to restrain Defendants from opening
the door further into sovereign citizen ideologies that are contrary to law and asks
the Court to bar Defendants from "further arguing their ideological arguments."
The Court finds the Government's position well taken. The UCC will
undoubtedly be discussed during trial, but its discussion will be restrained to its
proper legal use. Any attempt by Defendants to make arguments concerning the
use of the UCC that is contrary to law will be barred. These potential arguments are
contrary to prevailing law and are not fit to be argued 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 Defendants from arguing for acquittal
"because they followed a different set of beliefs" or for any reason beyond the facts
and law of the case. Doc. #98, PagelD #560. In effect, it attempts to bar Defendants
from arguing for jury nullification.
As a recent case in this district stated:
Case: 3:25-cr-00080-WHR Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

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. 2d at 1021 ("[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. ").
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 Defendants are 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 Defendants from
arguing that, by virtue of their beliefs, they were mistaken as to the law. " Doc. #98,
PagelD#561. "The general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no
6
Case: 3:25-cr-00080-WHR Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

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 Defendants are barred from arguing to the jury or attempting to present
evidence based on the premise that they were mistaken as to the law. The
Government's motion is SUSTAINED.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the United States' Motion in Limine to Prohibit
Jury Nullification and Mistake of Law Arguments, Doc. #98, is SUSTAINED
Date: February 17, 2026 <&^ri 	VCS->
WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 3:25-cr-00080-WHR Doc #: 111 Filed: 02/17/26 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>