Motion in Limine
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NITA
NITA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Cr. No. 00001 PLAINTIFF, ) ) v. ) )
WILLIAM LLOYD ) DEFENDANT. )
___________________________________ )
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED GANG AFFILIATED COMMENTS BECAUSE OF THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE EVIDENCE COMES NOW the Defendant, William Lloyd, by and through counsel, Laura Poschen, and requests the Court to exclude from evidence at the trial of this matter the alleged statement “Street Vice Lords rule” as overheard by Ms. Mary Martinez. In support of this motion in limine, the Defendant offers the arguments and authorities contained herein.
Facts
1. On May 12, 2011, at approximately 10:00 a.m., the First Security Bank, located at 100 Main Street, Nita City, Nita, was robbed.
2. Ms. Mary Martinez stated that two men began robbing the bank. Upon completing the robbery, the robbers left the bank.
3. Ms. Mary Martinez reported hearing one of the bank robbers yell, “Street Vice Lords rule.” The defendant moves in limine to exclude this testimony and any reference of gang affiliation from the trial of this matter.
Arguments and Authorities The purpose of motions in limine is “ ‘to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.’ ” Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2nd Cir.1996) (quoting Banque Hypothecaire Du Canton De Geneve v. Union Mines, Inc., 652 F.Supp. 1400, 1401 (D.Md.1987)).
Additionally, the motion in limine is useful to ensure that only evidence that is relevant to the case is presented. “Relevant evidence” is that evidence “having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NITA
NITA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Cr. No. 00001 PLAINTIFF, ) ) v. ) )
WILLIAM LLOYD ) DEFENDANT. )
___________________________________ )
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED GANG AFFILIATED COMMENTS BECAUSE OF THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE EVIDENCE COMES NOW the Defendant, William Lloyd, by and through counsel, Laura Poschen, and requests the Court to exclude from evidence at the trial of this matter the alleged statement “Street Vice Lords rule” as overheard by Ms. Mary Martinez. In support of this motion in limine, the Defendant offers the arguments and authorities contained herein.
Facts
1. On May 12, 2011, at approximately 10:00 a.m., the First Security Bank, located at 100 Main Street, Nita City, Nita, was robbed.
2. Ms. Mary Martinez stated that two men began robbing the bank. Upon completing the robbery, the robbers left the bank.
3. Ms. Mary Martinez reported hearing one of the bank robbers yell, “Street Vice Lords rule.” The defendant moves in limine to exclude this testimony and any reference of gang affiliation from the trial of this matter.
Arguments and Authorities The purpose of motions in limine is “ ‘to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.’ ” Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2nd Cir.1996) (quoting Banque Hypothecaire Du Canton De Geneve v. Union Mines, Inc., 652 F.Supp. 1400, 1401 (D.Md.1987)).
Additionally, the motion in limine is useful to ensure that only evidence that is relevant to the case is presented. “Relevant evidence” is that evidence “having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable