Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 193 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 5

KATHRYN N. NESTER, Federal Public Defender (#13967)

ROBERT K. HUNT, Assistant Federal Public Defender (#5722)
KRISTEN R. ANGELOS, Assistant Federal Public Defender (#8314)
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER
DISTRICT OF UTAH
Attorneys for Defendant
46 West Broadway, Suite 110
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Telephone: (801) 524-4010
Fax: (801) 524-4060
________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
vs.
LYLE STEED JEFFS,

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN
LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
OR ARGUMENT THAT MEMBERS
OF THE FLDS CHURCH HAVE A
RIGHT TO DONATE THEIR SNAP
BENEFITS TO THE FLDS
STOREHOUSE

Defendant.
Case No. 2:16-cr-00082 TS-1

Defendant, Lyle Steed Jeffs (Mr. Jeffs), by and through his counsel of record, Kathryn N.
Nester, Robert K. Hunt, and Kristen R. Angelos, hereby responds to the Governments Motion

in Limine as follows:
1

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 193 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 5

1. The Indictment in the above-styled case was returned by the Grand Jury and filed
on February 17, 2016.
2. On February 24, 2016, Defendant Lyle Jeffs appeared before the Court and
entered a plea of Not Guilty to all the Counts listed in the Indictment.
3. On March 22, 2016, counsel for the government and counsel for all
co-defendants appeared before Magistrate Judge Robert Braithwaite in St.
George, Utah, at which time the Court ordered the Government to produce all
discovery by April 15, 2016. The Court also set a trial date for May 31, 2016,
and ordered all parties to appear before United States District Judge Ted Stewart
on April 27, 2016, for a final status conference prior to trial.
4. The government produced batches of discovery in anticipation of trial and filed
certificates of compliance on the following dates:
a. March 21, 2016 One Blu-ray disc containing investigative reports.
b. April 15, 2016 Multiple gigabytes of digital files to be downloaded from
a cloud-based service, 89 Native Discs, 23 two terrabyte hard drives
containing video surveillance, 1 two terrabyte hard drive containing
documents and video/audio files.
c. April 27, 2016 A second set of digital files to be downloaded from a
cloud-based service consisting of multiple gigabytes of information.
5. On April 26, 2016, the government filed their Motion in Limine asking the Court
to prevent all of the Defendants from presenting any evidence or argument in
2

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 193 Filed 05/10/16 Page 3 of 5

support of any defense suggesting that the FLDS members have a right to donate
their SNAP benefits to their religious community. Pursuant to local rules, the
deadline for defendants to respond to the Motion in Limine is Tuesday, May 10,
2016.
6. All counsel for the government and the defendants appeared before United States
District Judge Ted Stewart on April 27, 2016, for a status conference. During
the status conference, the government informed the Court that there were still
more discovery materials outstanding and that it may be as long as a month
before they could be turned over to the defendants. During the hearing, the
government stated that it may be as much as 10 percent of the total universe of
discovery that is still outstanding. The Court set a new discovery deadline of
May 31, 2016, requiring the government to turn over all discovery materials by
that date.
7. As of the date of filing of this Response, the defendants have yet to receive all the
discovery materials promised by the government. Furthermore, the discovery
materials that the defendants have received consist of over 42 terrabytes of
information. Even if you discount the video surveillance files, there are still
over two terrabytes of discovery materials that must be reviewed by the
defendants before they can determine which, if any, defenses they intend to raise
at the trial of this matter. The large majority of the discovery materials were
received within the past three weeks.
3

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 193 Filed 05/10/16 Page 4 of 5

8. The questions of whether or not the defense should be entitled to present a

constitutional challenge to the statutes and regulations cited by the government or
whether facts or arguments relating to the religious practices of the defendants
will be relevant at trial in this matter cannot be considered in a vacuum. Such
questions are intrinsically connected to the facts of the case, which have yet to be
fully disclosed by the government or explored by the defense. For example, in
order for the defendants to answer the governments Motion in Limine, they will
need to be able to advise the Court of the facts surrounding the donation of the
SNAP benefits. The motivation for the donations, the religious teachings of the
community, the information the community members received from the
government regarding their benefits, the history and practice of this community
and other similarly situated communities, the relationships with the vendors all
these facts and more will impact whether and to what extent the defendants seek
to raise the defense the government is asking the Court to preclude. Until the
discovery process is complete, the defendants simply cannot respond to the
Motion in Limine in a way that will be helpful to the Court.
9. The ripeness doctrine aims to prevent courts from entangling themselves in
abstract disagreements by avoiding premature adjudication. Abbott Labs v.
Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681(1967). Although
this doctrine is typically applied when determining whether a cause of action is
justiciable under Article III, the reasoning behind the doctrine is analogous to the
4

Case 2:16-cr-00082-TS-RTB Document 193 Filed 05/10/16 Page 5 of 5

situation presented by the Governments premature filing of their Motion in

Limine. When determining whether a matter is ripe for adjudication the Court
should inquire whether the courts would benefit from further factual
development of the issues presented. Roe No. 2 v. Ogden, 253 F.3d 1225, 1231
(10th Cir. 2001). Defense counsel submit that unless and until they have the
opportunity to review the entirety of the governments evidence and review the
same with their client, any adjudication of the relevance of hypothetical defenses
that the defendant may or may not present at trial would be a waste of judicial
resources, would violate the ripeness doctrine, and would prejudice the
defendants ability to present whatever defenses the facts ultimately support.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully moves

this Honorable Court to strike the governments Motion in Limine, without
prejudice. Should this Court decline to strike the governments motion, defense
counsel respectfully reserve their right to seek from this Honorable Court an
extension of time to respond.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 10th day of May 2016.

/s/ Kathryn N. Nester
Kathryn N. Nester
Federal Public Defender