Trial Order of Events

I. Pre-Trial Motions
A. MY SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONMove to exclude the June 23, 2009 Grand Jury testimony made by Pat Siewart. 1. Under Rule 403 the probative value is NOT substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The only crime at issue is that the defendant is accused of personal burglary and possession of stolen property. Mentioning the unsubstantiated fraud allegations will make this a trial about the fraud and severally harm client. TOO MANY ISSUES and SEVERE PREJUDICE. 2. Additionally, the testimony is not supportable as character evidence. Under Rule 404evidence of other crimes or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show conformity therewith. B. RESPONSE to Prosecutions motion to exclude Donnies misdemeanor conviction 1. The underlying charge was a felony that was reduced to a misdemeanor. Rule 609(a) should apply because the crime was punishable by a year before being reduced and also is a crime that is determinative of TRUTHFULNESS to get in under Rule 609(a)(2). C. MY PROCEDUAL MOTIONSdont forget 1. Motion to move about freely 2. Motion for constructive sequestration per Rule 615

II. Opening Statements

A. Prosecution Opens 1. Mark down what they are going to prove, and if they do not show that evidence move for mistrial at DV. B. Piayon gives Opening

III. Prosecution Direct Examination A. MY Cross-Examination of DonnieUse printed questions and make notes during prosecutions direct
1. Be sure to object with 404 that Pat is arguing character 2. Call for an admonishment of the jury per Rule 105 B. Piayons Cross of Pat C. Checklist Prosecution must meet to make case of Burglary 1. D entered the dwelling of another 2. D did not have authority to enter 3. D had the intent of theft D. Checklist for Possession of Stolen Property 1. Establish Pat as owner of stuffed dog 2. That D intended theft (not borrowing) 3. That D intended to deprive Pat of use Or 3. That D knowingly possessed to deprive Pat Or 3. That D possessed the dog knowing it probably would deprive Pat And 4. That the property was $2,500 (have to enter into evidence!)

Trial Order of Events

IV. Motion for Directed Verdict
A. Go over checklist and make sure they did not miss a crucial element. Otherwise argue the tenuous connection of the evidence. 1. Use Fortsen v. State of Indiana in Memo to show that possession of stolen goods does not equal theft without more evidence of which there is none here.

V. Defense Direct Examination A. MY DIRECT of Connie Cutteruse printout of questions. Introduce Defense exhibit A and make sure to publish
B. Piayons Direct of Leslie

V. Closing Statements
A. Prosecution goes first B. MY CLOSING STATEMENTEmphasize elements of both crimes 1. Overall theme: a. Connie is not stupid b. Everyone had access to closet c. Pat had ax to grind with Connie and opportunity to hurt her d. ELEMENTS OF THE CRIMES were not met!!!