OO Special: Document Sources for Thao Trial Released This Week

Criminal court reporting is not OO's wheelhouse, and for the most part this publication has left the reporting of the Thao/Jones/Duong trial to others. Having read the source motions myself, my personal opinion is that no local news agency is doing justice to the claims and counter-claims, with Oaklandside the most honest, accurate and well-intended. Caveat that I'm not a laywer, nor have any more legal training than the job has given me over the years—I'm posting the court documents that to my knowledge have served as the basis for the reporting this week and are public. These are all public documents to my knowledge, so no credit to this publication is necessary, nor is this a reflection of any reporting or investigation on my part. I've kept the Pacer-issued release number in the PDF title prefix for reference and confirmation that the documents match.

The documents are presented in the order they were filed. The defendants posted their motions to limit evidence and statements initially with heavy redactions. The last two documents in this set are the prosecutor's responses to the defendant's motions, i.e, the documents that are the sources for the supposed "bombshell" revelations.

Note: Since the reporting of Oaklandside and EBT sparked the reporting there have been two sealed documents issued by the court this week.

—DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
ADMISSION OF CERTAIN COCONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS

—DEFENDANT ANDY DUONG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS (RULE 404(B) EVIDENCE); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

—DEFENDANT ANDRE JONES’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ) AN ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL PURSUANT TO FRE RULE 404(b)

—DEFENDANT SHENG THAO’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL PURSUANT TO RULE 404(B) AND JOINDER OF DEFENDANT ANDREJONES’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO RULE 404(B); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

—UNITED STATES’ CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE

—UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT DAVID TRUNG DUONG’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSION OF CERTAIN COCONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS