Category Archives: Motions in Limine

Defendant in Motor Vehicle Accident Files Motion In Limine to Exclude BAC Evidence – Nice Try.

18 Wednesday Mar 2015

Posted by in Admissibility, Evidence, Expert Witness Report, Expert Witnesses, Forensic Evidence, Litigation, Motion in Limine, Motions in Limine, Motor Vehicle

≈ Comments Off on Defendant in Motor Vehicle Accident Files Motion In Limine to Exclude BAC Evidence – Nice Try.

Tags

, , , , ,

Admissibility of BAC Evidence Requires Proof of Intoxication, by Daniel E. Cummins, TortTalk Blog

http://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/admissibility-of-bac-evidence-requires.html

(Please contact Daniel Cummins at dancummins@comcast.net if you wish to review a copy of this opinion.)

In his recent February 9, 2015 Opinion in the case of Ritter v. Van Campen Motors, Inc., No. 12-00,379 (C.P. Lycoming Co. Feb. 9, 2015 Anderson, J.), Judge Dudley M. Anderson addressed Motions in Limine pertaining to DUI evidence filed by a Defendant in a motor vehicle accident case.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a motor vehicle accident during which each party claimed that the other driver crossed the centerline resulting in the fatal accident. Accident reconstruction experts offered by each party came to opposite conclusions.

The Defendant filed a Motion In Limine to preclude evidence that the Defendant driver had a BAC of .257 at the time of the accident as confirmed by an autopsy report, testimony that the Defendant had been drinking prior to driving that day, and evidence that there was beer in the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the accident. The Defendant contended that the BAC evidence was inadmissible absent proof of intoxication. . . .

Continue reading →

8th Circuit Motions of Limine and Offers of Proof.

07 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by in 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Evidence, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Motions, Motions in Limine, Rule 103

≈ Comments Off on 8th Circuit Motions of Limine and Offers of Proof.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Renewal Notice: 8th Circuit Finds No Offer of Proof Needed Based on Prior Definitive Ruling, by Colin Miller, Evidence ProfBlogger, EvidenceProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/pk2vzlt

As amended in 2000, Federal Rule of Evidence 103(b) reads as follows:

(b) Not Needing to Renew an Objection or Offer of Proof. Once the court rules definitively on the record — either before or at trial — a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.

So, assume that a party files a motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence before trial. If the judge makes a definitive ruling deeming the subject evidence inadmissible, does the proponent need to make an offer of proof at trial? In Smith v. Hy–Vee, 622 F.3d 904 (8th Cir.2010), the Eighth Circuit answered this question in the affirmaive. In Lawrey v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 2014 WL 2489076 (8th Cir. 2014), however, the same court answered the question in the negative. . . .

A Rose by Any Other Name . . . .

09 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by in First Amendment, Legal Writing, Motions in Limine, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on A Rose by Any Other Name . . . .

Tags

, , , ,

Counsel on both sides petition the Court to be called “specific” names. The jury, as juries sometimes do, may be able to think of some on its own. CCE

A response to a motion in limine that I wish I had received, by Hon. George Richard Kofp, Hercules and the umpire Blog

http://bit.ly/19NNlFV