Case: 1:07-cr-00364 Document #: 219 Filed: 01/31/08 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:515 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned Assistant United States Attorney hereby certifies that the following document: GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO ADMIT CERTAIN EVIDENCE AS INTRICATELY RELATED TO THE CHARGED OFFENSES AND PURSUANT TO RULE 404(b) was served on January 31, 2008, in accordance with FED. R. CRIM. P. 49, FED. R. CIV. P. 5, LR 5.5, and the General Order on Electronic Case Filing (ECF) pursuant to the district court’s system as to ECF filers

The corruption of the funds by Defendant's use of the money to compensate women he has similarly victimized negates evidence of good character. Federal Rules of Evidence 404, 405. Although, the question relates to consensual relationships, it is relevant to this matter because Defendant is claiming that his sexual assault upon Plaintiff was consensual.

A court must, therefore, be chary in admitting such evidence when it is offered for the sole purpose of making a general character attack. Kunz v. DeFelice, 538 F.3d 667, 677 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Cameron, 814 F.2d 403, 405 (7th Cir.1987)); see also Mankey v. Bennett, 38 F.3d 353, 360 (7th Cir. 1994) (court properly excluded evidence of substance abuse since “any probative value of that substance abuse evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice”); Cobige v Chicago, 2010 WL 4340653, at 15 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (drug use by decedent properly excluded as inadmissible “bad act” under FRE 404 and pursuant to FRE 403 as being unfairly prejudicial); Mason v. City of Chicago, 631 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1060 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (“This Court is mindful of the dangers of introducing evidence about drugs. These concerns strike at the heart of this Court's decision to bar such evidence in this case.

Moreover, rule 404(b) states that "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith." Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). To admit other acts under rule 404(b), the proponent must provide a clear and logical connection between the alleged earlier offense or misconduct, and the case being tried.

The court noted: It is well settled that prior acts may not be admitted to prove that a person acted in a similar fashion in the case at hand. That is the plain meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 404: “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith.” 404(b).

In short, the broad categories of evidence cited in Trump’s motion may include evidence completely outside of FRE 404, subject to FRE 404, or that falls within one of the many FRE 404 exceptions, or, most likely, all of the above. Without any specifics, the Court has no way of sensibly ruling on FRE 404 grounds, other than to deny Trump’s motion in its entirety. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons provided herein, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Trump’s motion to exclude all evidence by or about Trump or publicized during his presidential campaign.

Even if evidence of Mr. Jobs’s character were admissible under Rule 404, it and other such inflammatory evidence should be excluded under Rules 402 and 403 as irrelevant, more prejudicial than probative, and a waste of time. FED. R. EVID. 403; see also Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. C-11-01846 LHK, Hr’g. Tr. at 118:3–8 (Dkt. 1272) (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2012) and Order at 3–4 (Dkt. 1267) (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2012)

10 Accordingly, such testimony can only be characterized as propensity evidence, which is inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). Additionally, Ms. Trinidad’s prior drug use has no bearing on her character for truthfulness, and is therefore inadmissible as impeachment evidence under Federal Rule of 8 Supporting Dep.

Wachovia’s feigned concerns that the Court will be “misled” or “confused,” were they not insulting, would be equally disingenuous. That we have never seen the Court “misled” or 7 Wachovia contends that if SCF were to argue that the admission of “other communications” evidence is proper under FRE 404(b)(1), “it will still have to show that the probative value of the evidence not be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the Court and undue delay.” (MOL at 5, n.4).

See e.g., Berkovich v. Hicks, 922 F.2d 1018, 1022 (2d Cir. 1991). Here, it cannot be said the defendants’ disciplinary history, CCRBs, or other prior bad acts fall within the “exceptions” of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Especially, where, as here, there is no municipal claim for failure to train or discipline, the officers histories are completely irrelevant and prejudicial.