Judge limits drug‑history evidence, questions jurors about fentanyl in Lowenthal manslaughter case

A Jefferson County judge on the record before jury selection granted several motions in limine restricting what witnesses may say about the decedent's prior drug rehabilitation and forbade lay witnesses from identifying chemical substances or offering expert opinions about quantities in the manslaughter case against Harry Francis Lowenthal (cause no. 24DCCR1911).

The rulings came during a pretrial hearing and the start of voir dire in the 252nd District Court. Judge Raquel West said she would "grant the motion in limine at this point" as to historical references to the decedent's drug rehabilitation, while allowing evidence of drug use immediately preceding death if later shown relevant. The court also granted the defense request to bar lay witnesses from stating the chemical identity of substances or opining whether amounts are consistent with personal use or distribution.

The prosecutor, Tommy Coleman of the Jefferson County district attorney's office, told the panel about fentanyl's danger, saying in voir dire that "just 2 milligrams ... can be lethal," and asked potential jurors whether that fact or media coverage about fentanyl would prevent them from judging the case solely on evidence presented in court. Coleman described the charged offense as manslaughter, alleging reckless conduct by delivery of a controlled substance (fentanyl), and walked jurors through the legal meaning of "recklessly" versus "intentionally" or "negligently." He also emphasized the statutory classification the office would rely on during the trial.

During the hearing the prosecutor orally moved to amend the indictment to remove duplicative language — striking the word "constructively" where the statutory definition already covers both "actual" and "constructive" delivery. Judge West indicated she would allow that oral amendment to avoid confusing the jury.

Voir dire elicited multiple jurors' personal experiences with overdose. Juror 15 (Phillips) told the court, "My son passed away," and other jurors reported family members or acquaintances affected by fentanyl or overdoses; a juror identified himself as a paramedic who had treated overdoses. Several prospective jurors raised concerns that strong personal experiences could affect their ability to be impartial, and the judge and lawyers said those individuals would be handled privately as part of the selection process.

Judge West and the attorneys also outlined procedural points for trial: manslaughter was described as a second‑degree felony with a statutory punishment range discussed in the courtroom, jurors were reminded of the presumption of innocence and the prosecutor's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court instructed that jurors must base verdicts on evidence presented in court rather than media accounts or outside information.

The court directed that if counsel believes evidence about the decedent's rehabilitation or other sensitive material should be introduced later, counsel should approach the bench before mentioning it in front of the jury. No formal evidentiary hearing beyond the in‑court rulings took place at the time; the judge said she would revisit exclusions if parties later showed a reason the material should be admitted.

With voir dire underway, the court paused to bring back prospective jurors individually as needed; the trial schedule and final jury selection were to proceed after those private discussions.