Anda di halaman 1dari 4

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 1194 Filed 12/27/16 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5

JESS R. MARCHESE, ESQ.


Nevada Bar # 8175
601 S. Las Vegas Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89101
(702) 385-5377
marcheselaw@msn.com
Attorney for Defendant PARKER

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


DISTRICT OF NEVADA
***

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ERIC PARKER,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

2:16-cr-046-GMN-PAL

MOTION FOR INCIDENT SCENE


VIEWING

MOTION FOR INCIDENT SCENE VIEWING


Defendant herein, ERIC PARKER, by and through his attorneys of record, JESS R.

19

MARCHESE, ESQ., hereby files this MOTION FOR INCIDENT SCENE VIEWING.
20
21

DATED this 27th day of December, 2016,

22
23
24

_______________/s/____________________
JESS R. MARCHESE, ESQ.
Attorney for ERIC PARKER

25
26
27
28

-1-

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 1194 Filed 12/27/16 Page 2 of 4

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2
3
4
5
6

The issue presented is whether the court should exercise its discretion and allow an in
person viewing of the area of the incident scene at issue.
When ruling on motions for a jury view of the scene, courts have considered the following
factors: (1) whether the view will be cumulative of other evidence (Fed. R. Evid. 403; Johnson v.

WilliamC. Ellis & Sons Iron Works, Inc., 604 F.2d 950, 958 (5th Cir. 1979)); (2) whether the
8
9

view will incur unwarranted delay and inconvenience (Hametner v. Villena, 361 F.2d 445, 445-

10

46 (9th Cir. 1966)); (3) whether the view will expose the jury to prejudicial comments or

11

conditions (Lopez v. Thurmer, 573 F.3d 484, 494-96 (7th Cir. 2009)); (4) whether the view has

12

changed in appearance since the event in question, although that will not necessarily bar a jury

13

view of the scene (Dugas v. Coplan, 506 F.3d 1, 12-13 (1st Cir. 2007); N.W.Natl Cas. Co., 533
14
15

F.2d at 323); and (5) whether the view will invite jury members to tamper or experiment with the

16

site, although this alone is not sufficient ground for refusing to permit the view (Clemente v.

17

Carnicon-P.R. Mgmt. Assocs., L.C., 52 F.3d 383, 387 n.4 (1st Cir. 1995), abrogated on other

18

grounds by United States v.Gray, 199 F.3d 547, 548 (1st Cir. 1999)).
19
20

In this case, the defendant prays for an order allowing the jury to view the incident scene

21

on Interstate 15 at mile marker 115 and the Toquop Wash. It would also be beneficial if they

22

had the ability to walk down into and inspect the wash area. The trier of fact will be aided

23

greatly if given the ability to walk and view these areas.

24

When applying the above factors to the instant case, Mr. Parker would argue that four of
25
26

the five factors are in favor of granting his motion. In reference to the first factor, seeing the

27

actual scene would not be cumulative of the anticipated evidence to be introduced at trial.

28

Although pictures and video of the area will certainly help, they cannot illustrate the sheer
-2-

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 1194 Filed 12/27/16 Page 3 of 4

1
2

enormity of the residence or spatial reference of the vantage points from bridge to bridge, from
the wash to the bridge, and from the bridge to the wash. Further, although many pictures and

videos were provided in the discovery, they do not depict each and every spot and location of the
4
5
6
7
8

area. Personally seeing the actual road, wash, and general terrain would remedy this issue.
Next, counsel concedes that viewing the scene would be an inconvenience. Counsel
would need to contact the Nevada Highway Patrol with a court order in order to arrange for one
western, northbound lane of travel on the I-15 to be shut down so that the jurors can safely

traverse the bridge and view the relevant areas of the bridge. Further, the site is approximately a
10
11

one hour drive from the courthouse assuming that the traffic is relatively clear on whatever day is

12

chosen for the inspection. Moreover, although counsel has an investigator that has been out to

13

the area, it is nearly impossible to view the area from exactly where the defendants were situated

14

on the bridge as cars raced by at a high rate of speed and there is only about 5 feet of shoulder
15
16
17
18
19

between the barrier and the travel lane of the interstate. As a result, it was nearly impossible for
him to videotape or take pictures safely.
The jury, would not be prejudiced by a viewing. There would not be any outside
influences at the location during the viewing and only court staff and the parties would be

20

present.
21
22

Fourth, the area has not materially changed since the incident from over two years ago on

23

April 12, 2014. The only major change has been the fact that the gate has been removed from

24

under the southbound bridge and the cattle corrals have also been removed.

25

Lastly, there would be no reason for anyone to tamper with the site. Offhand, counsel

26

cannot think of any way it could be tampered with as the main reason for asking for the viewing
27
28

is simply to understand the layout and vantage points of the residence.


-3-

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 1194 Filed 12/27/16 Page 4 of 4

1
2

Based upon the above, Mr. Parker submits that a viewing of the area by the jury at trial
would be advantageous and illustrative to the jurors in this case and should therefore be ordered.

3
4
5

DATED this 27th day of December, 2016,


_______________/s/____________________
JESS R. MARCHESE, ESQ.
Attorney for ERIC PARKER

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was filed on

13
14
15
16
17
18

December 27, 2016 via the Southern District of Nevada ECF system to the following registered
recipients:
Mr. Steven Myrhe, Esq.
Mr. Nicholas Dickinson, Esq.
Ms. Nadia Ahmed, Esq.
Ms. Erin Creegan, Esq.
United States Attorneys Office

19
20
21

_________/s/__________________________
Employee of Jess R. Marchese, Esq.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-