Download the WordPerfect version

                                                   Page 1

                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                    HOUSTON DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA        )   Criminal No.  H-94-58
                                )
          v.                    )
                                )
GLAZIER FOODS CO.,              )[filed 4/26/94]
                                )
                  Defendant.    )
                                )


       GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
       DISCLOSURE AND LIMINE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF
EVIDENCE RULE 404(b) WITH LEGAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

         The United States, through its undersigned attorneys,
hereby responds to Defendant's Motion for Disclosure and Limine
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 404(b) with Legal
Authorities in Support.  The government does not currently
anticipate introducing at trial any evidence under Fed. R. Evid.
404(b).  In the event the government determines it is necessary
and proper to introduce such evidence, the defendant will be
given reasonable notice of the general nature of any such
evidence as mandated by Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
         The government, however, takes exception to certain
representations made in the defendant's motion.  First, although
the Court should make an on-the-record articulation of Beechum
findings, a pre-trial hearing is not required.  United States v.
Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 915 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied,
440 U.S. 920 (1979); see also United States v. Fortenberry, 860
F.2d 
                                                   Page 2

628, 634 n.11 (5th Cir. 1988), cert. denied,    U.S.   ,
111 S.Ct. 1333 (1991), citing United States v. Robinson, 700
F.2d 205, 213 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1003
(1984).
         Second, should the court be required to determine the
admissibility of any Rule 404(b) evidence, Fed. R. Evid. 104
should be applied as it is for any other admissibility
determination and as such the court will not be bound by the
rules of evidence, except those with respect to privileges. 
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 686-690, 108 S.Ct.
1496, 1500-1502 (1988); United States v. Anderson, 933 F.2d
1261, 1273 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Williams, 900 F.2d
 823, 826 (5th Cir. 1990); see also Beechum, 582 F.2d at 916.
         Finally, Rule 404(b) requires only notice of the
general nature of the evidence sought to be introduced.  Should
the government determine in the future that it is advisable to
introduce at trial any evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b), the
defendant's demand for more detailed notice should be denied.

                             Respectfully submitted,


                                     "/s/"              
                             JANE E. PHILLIPS
                             JOAN E. MARSHALL
                             MARK R. ROSMAN

                             Attorneys
                             U.S. Department of Justice
                             Antitrust Division
                             1100 Commerce Street, Room 8C6
                             Dallas, Texas  75242-0898
                             (214) 767-8051
                                                   Page 3




              CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


         I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
Government's Response to Defendant's Motion for Disclosure and
Limine Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 404(b) with
Legal Authorities in Support and proposed order has been served
upon and was sent via Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested
this 25th day of April, 1994, to:


                     Joel M. Androphy, Esq.
                     Berg & Androphy
                     3704 Travis Street
                     Houston, Texas  77002




                                                      
                                  JANE E. PHILLIPS
                                  Attorney


                                      






















                                                   Page 4


                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                        HOUSTON DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA     )    Criminal No.  H-94-58
                             )
          v.                 )
                             )
GLAZIER FOODS CO.,           )
                             )
                  Defendant. )


                     O R D E R


         Upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion for
Disclosure and Limine Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence Rule
404(b) with Legal Authorities in Support and the Government's
Response,
         The Defendant's Motion is hereby DENIED.
         DONE AND ENTERED THIS      day of            , 1994.



                             ____________________________
                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE