Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1237

Filed 09/11/16

Page 1 of 3

MATTHEW SCHINDLER, OSB# 964190

501 Fourth Street #324
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Phone: (503) 699-7333
FAX: (503) 345-9372
e-mail: mattschindler@comcast.net
HYBRID COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT KENNETH MEDENBACH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:16-CR-00051-16-BR

MOTION IN LIMINE

vs.
KENNETH MEDENBACH,
Defendant(s).
Defendant, Kenneth Medenbach, through hybrid counsel, Matthew
Schindler, moves the Court for an order in limine excluding certain of the
governments evidence as described below.
1. Background:
At the original hearing on the defendants motions in limine, the court
directed the government to provide the defense with summaries of the anticipated
testimony from refuge employees. The government did that on August 26, 2016.
See Letter from USAO dated 8/26/16 attached as Exhibit 1.1 Counsel for Mr.
Medenbach reviewed that document and identified through highlights the portions
of the testimony that remained objectionable as either irrelevant, hearsay, or

Per the governments express wishes this letter will be emailed separately to the court to be a sealed
exhibit for the record.

Page 1 MOTION IN LIMINE

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1237

Filed 09/11/16

Page 2 of 3

unnecessarily cumulative. Id. The defense forwarded these objections to the

government on September 1, 2016. The government responded on September 2,
2016 that it believed the testimony was consistent with the courts order and would
seek to admit it. This satisfies the courts conferral requirement. The defense has
not had sufficient time to draft this motion until now.
2. Motion in Limine:
Given the exigencies defendant is not going to explain why each highlighted
section is irrelevant. Generally, the arguments track with those at the hearing: the
employees perceptions of events generally and their subjective impressions are
irrelevant to the defendants state of mind. In addition, some of the testimony elicits
inadmissible hearsay. In the case of Dorey Osgood, the testimony is unnecessary
and cumulative to the other BLM witnesses.
The government seeks yet again to make this trial about the irrelevant
secondary impacts of the protest and not the defendants intentions. The court
should reject this testimony. The government should be required to explain the
relevant purpose for which it offers all of the proffered testimony.
Mr. Medenbach agrees that the BLM managers closed the refuge as a result
of a protest in Burns. Because of the subsequent protest at the Refuge and related
safety concerns it remained closed. The defense is hard pressed to see why, other
than direct observations of defendants, anything else is relevant. Nevertheless it
appears the government intends to offer irrelevant evidence that has nothing to do
with the defendants state of mind in an appeal to the jurys sympathies. That
Page 2 MOTION IN LIMINE

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1237

Filed 09/11/16

Page 3 of 3

employees were in fact impacted is just not evidence in this case. It has nothing to
do with proving a conspiracy particularly one impacting important First and
Second Amendment rights.
The refuge was closed by District Managers based on concerns about
employees no one has ever disputed that. Why does a week of trial time need to
be devoted to an undisputed fact?

Respectfully submitted on September 11, 2016.

Matthew A. Schindler, OSB#964190

Hybrid counsel for Kenneth Medenbach

Page 3 MOTION IN LIMINE