Motion in limine meaning1/17/2024 ![]() The authority for filing motions in limine is found in Rules 104(a) and 103(c) of the Federal Rules, which authorize courts to control pretrial proceedings and resolve preliminary questions or evidence. Legal Basis for the Use of Offensive Motions in LimineĪs translated from its Latin origins, the term in limine means “at the threshold” or “at the outset.” Although motions in limine are not expressly sanctioned by the Federal Rules of Evidence, courts and litigants rely heavily on them to clarify and address issues of admissibility prior to trial. īecause we were so surprised by our opponent’s response to our use of an offensive motion in limine, we thought it might be helpful to remind litigators that such motions can be effective tools and discuss the reasons why a litigator might want to file such a motion. We simply could not believe that our opponent did not realize that motions in limine are used both to prequalify evidence (offensively) and to request a pretrial ruling precluding certain evidence (defensively). In that response, the lawyer wrote that motions in limine are “by definition” designed to preclude the admission of evidence, and that it was inappropriate for us to move in limine for the admission of evidence. ![]() Consequently, we were surprised when we saw his response to our motion in limine. The lawyer on the other side of the case was a very seasoned and well-respected practitioner, a lawyer to whom we regularly referred matters. Because this was an evidentiary issue, we decided to file a motion in limine asking the court to make a determination of the admissibility of the spouse’s prior conviction. We knew that the Arizona Rules of Evidence provide that any conviction that is more than 10 years old is presumptively inadmissible unless the proponent gives the adverse party sufficient advance written notice to contest the use and the court then determines that the probative value of the prior conviction substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect. Even though the date of the spouse’s criminal contempt conviction was still less than 10 years old, the 10 th anniversary of the conviction would occur prior to the start of the trial in the matter we were handling. However, from an evidentiary standpoint, there was a problem with the spouse’s conviction. Given the great impeachment value of the spouse’s prior conviction, as well as the similarity between the matter in which she perjured herself and the case we were defending, we were excited to have this evidence and wanted to use it if the case was ever tried. The court based its findings on false testimony provided by the spouse and the spouse’s solicitation of a third party to commit perjury. Moreover, we discovered that the spouse had been convicted of criminal contempt during those proceedings, and that the court had sentenced her to jail for a period of 48 hours. During the investigation of the spouse’s case, we discovered that the spouse had made similar claims of mistreatment during her divorce proceeding against her first husband. ![]() We recently handled a civil matter in which our client was alleged to have mistreated his former spouse. ![]() Published in American Bar Association Trial Evidence Journal
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |