USA v. Prater

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
United States of America
V.
Cody Prater,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:25-cr-56
Judge Michael H. Watson
OPINIONAND ORDER
This Opinion and Order concerns two outstanding motions: the
Government's motion in limine to exclude certain arguments by Defendant, ECF
No. 32, and Defendant's motion in limine to exclude prejudicial characterizations,
ECF No. 38. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES AS MOOT both
motions.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
"A ruling on a motion in limine is no more than a preliminary, or advisory,
opinion that falls entirely within the discretion of the district court. " United States
v. Yannott, 42 F. 3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). The advanced
ruling aids the parties "in formulating their trial strategy, " but a court "may change
its ruling on a motion in limine where sufficient facts have developed to warrant
the change. " Id. (citation omitted).
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 60 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

II. ANALYSIS
A. Government's Motion
The Government moves to exclude "any evidence or argument. . related
to: the evidence in this case being seized unlawfully and any argument, evidence
or lines of inquiry designed to elicit or which has the effect of supporting jury
nullification, including potential penalties the defendant will face if convicted."
Mot. 1, ECF No. 32. The Government concedes that the portion of its motion
concerning the lawfulness of seized evidence is "premature, " but it makes the
motion in the event that the Court denies Defendant's motion to suppress. Id. at
2. Next, the Government argues that evidence concerning a possible sentence
or other consequences collateral to a conviction is irrelevant to Defendant's guilt
or innocence and must thus be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Id. at 3. Finally, the Government argues that the Court should prohibit Defendant
from offering any other type of "jury nullification" argument. Id. at 4-7.
Defendant responds first that, should his motion to suppress be denied, he
will not attempt to argue that any evidence was illegally seized. Resp. 2, ECF
No. 52. But, if the Court denies his motion to suppress, Defendant intends "to
confront and cross-examine government witnesses-including law enforcement
officers-regarding their failure to follow procedures, inconsistencies in their
conduct, and the reliability of their testimony. " Id. Defendant argues that "[t]he
jury has a right to know whether the officers cut corners, deviated from training,
or failed to follow standard procedures, because such conduct directly affects
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 2 of 5
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 60 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

whether their testimony is reliable. " Id. at 3. Defendant further responds that he
has no intent to offer evidence or argument concerning possible punishment or
jury nullification. Id.
The Government did not reply.
The Court agrees with Defendant that there is space between arguing that
evidence was illegally obtained and challenging the reliability of admissible
evidence. So long as Defendant's cross-examination remains in that space, it is
proper. The Government does not seem to suggest otherwise with its motion, so
the same is DENIED AS MOOT because Defendant agrees not to argue that any
admitted evidence was illegally obtained or to present evidence or argument on
penalties or jury nullification. Should the Government believe defense counsel's
cross-examination violates the spirit of this Order (which the Court has no reason
to think will occur), the Court expects it to lodge a contemporaneous objection.
B. Defendant's Motion
Defendant moves to prevent the Government and its witnesses from
referring to Defendant with inflammatory language, such as "predator, " "sex
offender, " and "pedophile, " or saying that he "preys on children. " Mot. 1, ECF No.
38. Defendant argues that such pejorative characterizations are unfairly
prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and constitute improper
propensity evidence under Rule 404(a). Id. at 2. He also argues that it amounts
to improper lay opinion testimony under Rule 701 and is not the type of
"evidence" admissible under Rule 702. Id.
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 3 of 5
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 60 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

The Government agrees that inflammatory labels such as "pedophile" and
"child molester" are improper. Resp. 1, ECF No. 48. The Government notes,
however, that it intends to introduce evidence concerning Defendant's sexual
interest in children and argues that such evidence is relevant and admissible. Id.
The Government promises that, in doing so, it will remain cognizant to steer clear
from language that might unnecessarily inflame the passions of the jurors. Id. at
1-2. Moreover, in response to Defendant's "propensity" argument, the
Government states that it intends to offer evidence that Defendant is a prior
convicted sex offender. Id. at 2. It notes that this issue is more fully detailed in
ECF No. 34 (and Defendant's response thereto, ECF No. 54).
Defendant does not reply.
The Court is satisfied with the Government's representation that it will
refrain from labelling Defendant at trial as a "predator, " "child molester, " or the like
and will remain conscientious of its word choices. If Defendant has specific
phrases or labels he is concerned with, the Court recommends that he and the
Government meet and confer ahead of trial. To the extent the Government
expresses an intent to use a specific label or phrase to describe Defendant that
Defendant believes is improper, he shall raise that issue with the Court prior to
trial. At this point, however, the Court DENIES AS MOOT this portion of
Defendant's motion given the Government's concession
The Court DECLINES, however, to prohibit the Government from referring
to Defendant as a convicted sex offender or from otherwise referencing prior
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 4 of 5
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 60 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

acts, pending the Court's ruling on Defendant's opposition to the Government's
Notice of Intent to Use Evidence ("Notice"), ECF No. 34. The parties' positions
on propensity evidence appear more fully briefed in connection with those
documents than Defendant's motion in limine, so the Court's forthcoming ruling
on Defendant's response in opposition to the Government's Notice shall govern
this portion of Defendant's motion in limine.
III. CONCLUSION
Because both motions are-in all material respects-unopposed, the Court
DENIES AS MOOT ECF No. 32 and the "labelling" portion of ECF No. 38. The
Court will rule on the "propensity" portion of ECF No. 38 in connection with ECF
Nos. 34 and 54. The Clerk SHALL terminate ECF Nos. 32 and 38 as pending
motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Michael H. Watson
IVIICHAELH. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case No. 2:25-cr-56 	Page 5 of 5
Case: 2:25-cr-00056-MHW Doc #: 60 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>