![]() ![]() To this Judge, the adversary process was in play, and the onus was on the opponent of evidence to ensure exclusion or limitation. 2004).īut something more fundamental was at issue. “Motions that seek…to obtain a ruling on the admissibility of evidence may be brought at any time before the introduction of the evidence to which they pertain.” Pullum v. However, they may apply to inclusion as well. 460, 462 (1984)(“ We use the term in a broad sense to refer to any motion…to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.”). Some courts have focused on the exclusionary aspect of such motions. She apparently thought “limine” means “to limit” when instead it is Latin for beginning or threshold – and thus refers to timing and not content or scope. That nomenclature was the first clue that the Judge had it wrong. If your opponent does not move to exclude the evidence, just go with it at trial.” The Judge actually called a motion to admit evidence one in “ non limine.” Shouldn’t the same approach be used to ensure inclusion of proof? The answer should be “of course,” but I recently came across a contrary view – one that is dead wrong.Ī Judge gave the following advice – “A motion in limine should only be used to seek the exclusion of evidence and not to ensure that an item of evidence is admissible. Lawyers regularly move, pre-trial, to exclude evidence. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |