Defendant’s Pre-Trial Motion No. 108
Motion In Limine
Concerning the State’s Entitlement to a Fair Trial
by Maxwell C. Peck III
CAUSE NO.
STATE OF TEXAS	§	IN THE DISTRICT COURT
	§
VS.	§	31ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
	§
_______________	§	___________ COUNTY, TEXAS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

	COMES NOW _________________, Defendant, and brings this Motion in Limine Concerning the State’s Entitlement to a Fair Trial, and in support thereof shows:
	1. The District Attorney has repeatedly made statements to veniremen during the voir dire of this case that the State is entitled to a “fair trial,” the same as the Defendant. The implication of this statement being that the rules governing this trial should be applied equally to the State and the Defendant so that neither side should have any advantage over the other.
	2. This comment is a misstatement of the law. Unlike the Defendant, the State of Texas is not entitled to due process and due course of law. Collier v. Poe, 732 S.W.2d 332, 343-344 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)(copy attached hereto); State ex rel. Turner v. McDonald, 676 S.W.2d 371, 373 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). These fundamental rights are personal rights guaranteed to the individual citizen as protection from the State. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S. Ct. 836, 846, 92 L. Ed. 1161 (1948). Accordingly, the Defendant will always have superior rights to the State and, as such, a criminal trial will never be fair to the State at the expense of the Defendant.1 
	3. The District Attorney’s repeated statements to veniremen that the State is entitled to a “fair” trial erodes the protection guaranteed Defendant under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, §§13 and 19, of the Texas Constitution by implying to the prospective jurors that the personal due process rights enjoyed by the Defendant are no more important than the power wielded by the State (which prosecutors mistakenly refer to as “rights”) when, in fact, the opposite is true. As a result, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court order the State to refrain from commenting or opining to any veniremen or seated juror that the State has a right to a “fair” trial.
	WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that the Court grant this Motion in Limine Concerning the State’s Entitlement to a Fair Trial.

	Respectfully submitted,

	_______________________________
	MAXWELL C. PECK III
	Attorney and Counselor at Law
	P.O. Box 310
	Amarillo, Texas 79105
	Tel: (806) 359-3413
	Fax: (806) 371-3433
	State Bar No. 24034619

	LAW OFFICE OF JOE MARR WILSON
	104 West Sixth Avenue, Suite 300
	Amarillo, Texas 79101
	Tel: (806) 374 7758
	Fax: (806) 374 0315

	By: ____________________________
	JOE MARR WILSON
	State Bar No. 21697700
	Attorneys for ____________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

	This is to certify that on July 21, 2009, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was served on the 31st District Attorney’s Office, by hand delivery.

	__________________________________
	JOE MARR WILSON

CAUSE NO.
STATE OF TEXAS	§	IN THE DISTRICT COURT
	§
VS.	§	31ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
	§
_______________	§	___________ COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDER

	On __________________, 2009, came on to be considered ______________’s Motion in Limine Concerning the State’s Entitlement to a Fair Trial, and said motion is hereby

	GRANTED ________________________________.

	DENIED __________________________________.

	____________________________________
	JUDGE PRESIDING