THE POWER OF TRIAL OBJECTIONS MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Kurt Hoffman Dana Kuehn

Transcription

1 THE POWER OF TRIAL OBJECTIONS MOTIONS IN LIMINE Kurt Hoffman Dana Kuehn

2 KURT HOFFMAN & JUDGE DANA KUEHN

3 A MOTION IN WHAT? in limine [in lee-mi-ne; English in lim-uh-nee] adverb, adjective, Latin. 1.on the threshold; at the outset A motion in limine is generally a pretrial device used to preclude prejudicial statements and questions which have no proper bearing on the issues in the case and which, if heard by the jury, would interfere with a fair and impartial trial. Braden v. Hendricks, 1985 OK 14, 695 P.2d Motions in limine allow the Court to settle, in advance, other anticipated evidentiary issues, and otherwise help to streamline and facilitate jury trials. See Zehner, 1981 OK CIV APP 44 atl5, 640 P.2d at 995.

4 HOW TO COMPOSE THE LIMINE MOTION INTRODUCTION BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS HEADINGS EVIDENTARY CODE PROVISIONS CASE LAW CONCLUSION

5 INTRODUCTION PARAGRAPH On December 24, 2013, Kurt Hoffman and Santa Claus were involved a rear- end collision on U.S. Highway 169. Hoffman claims that Claus, allegedly operating a vehicle in the course of doing business as Gift Delivery, Inc., failed to stop in time to avoid a rear-end collision with Hoffman. On April 11, 2016, the parties appeared for a pretrial conference, wherein Defendant Claus objected to portions of the pretrial order. First, Plaintiff Hoffman is requesting to add an un-pled, post-discovery claim for punitive damages. Second, Plaintiff Hoffman s relies on authority that applies only to punitive damages claims. Third, Plaintiff Hoffman has improperly failed to itemize/list in the order the specific damages he seeks at trial.

6 WHAT NOT TO PUT IN THE INTRO Oklahoma law recognizes Plaintiff s motion in limine as a common law means for obtaining rulings on the admissibility of evidence before trial See, e g, Middlebrook v Imler, Tenny & Kugler, MD. s, mc, 1985 OK 66, 12, 713 P.2d 572, 579; Braden v. Hendricks, 1$ OK 14, J8-9, 695 P.2d 1343, ; Haury v. State, 1975 OK CR 58, 10, 533 P.2d 991, 994; Zehner v. Post Oak Oil Co., 19810K CIV APP 44, 15, 640 P.2d 991, 995; Clarkv. Turner, 2004 OK CIV APP 69, 23, 99 P.3d 736, 741. A motion in limine is generally a pretrial device used to preclude prejudicial statements and questions which have no proper bearing on the issues in the case and which, if heard by the jury, would interfere with a fair and impartial trial. Braden, 1985 OK 14 at J 8-9, 695 P.2d at Motions in limine allow the Court to settle, in advance, other anticipated evidentiary issues, and otherwise help to streamline and facilitate jury trials. See Zehner, 1981 OK CIV APP 44 atl5, 640 P.2d at 995.

7 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS MATERIAL FACTS 1. On April 27, 2015, Plaintiff Hoffman filed his petition. He does not claim that Defendant Claus acted, or failed to act with intent, reckless disregard, or gross negligence ; he does not plea for relief in the form of punitive damages. 2. On October 27, 2015, a scheduling order was entered. The deadline for amending the petition expired on December 18, The deadline for completing discovery expired on February 28, On April 11, 2016, the parties appeared for a pretrial conference and a pre-trial conference order ( Order ) was entered. Defendant Claus objected to the following portions of the Order on the grounds that Plaintiff Hoffman appeared to be attempting to raise the issue of punitive damages now, for the first time, at the pre-trial conference: a. In subsection 2(c) of the Order, Plaintiff claims Defendant drove carelessly. b. In subsection 2(h) of the Order, Plaintiff claims Defendant was grossly negligent. c. In subsection 2(i) of the Order, Plaintiff claims Defendant was reckless. d. In subsection 2, under the Theories of Recovery/Authorities heading, Plaintiff lists 47 O.S (Reckless Driving). e. In subsection 2, under the Theories of Recovery/Authorities heading, Plaintiff lists Tulsa Mun. Ord., (Reckless Driving). 5. Defendant Claus also objected to Plaintiff Hoffman s failure to itemize his specific damages in the Order.

8 HEADINGS/ORGANIZATION ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY I. PLAINTIFF HOFFMAN SHOULD BE BARRED FROM REQUESTING INSTRUCTION ON PUNITIVE AND/OR SPECIAL DAMAGES AT TRIAL

9 CONTENT Argue real evidentiary issues DO NOT FILE A MOTION IN LIMINIE WITH VAGUE AND BROAD OBJECTIONS

10 PROPER MOTION IN LIMINE CONTENT EXAMPLES Irrelevant evidence- be specific Past criminal conduct of party or witness Co-conspirator or agent statements ruling Object to habit evidence Object to other crimes/wrongs/acts Proposed character evidence Offers of settlement that introduction is argued Privilege Hearsay- specific!

11 DO NOT INLCUDE IN MOTION Conduct violating Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct Suggesting during voir dire that a witness or party is not credible Injecting argument into voir dire Asking jurors to decide a hypothetical question Suggestion that Plaintiff/Defendant or their Counsel have Motives other than seeking recovery allowed by law Reference to Plaintiff s protected health care Statements or Implications encouraging possibility or speculation Any Hearsay Statements Reference to any Court rulings, including Limine Motion Inadmissible Evidence should be redacted form all documents

12

13 CONCLUSION Remember to make the motion contain important and useful evidentiary ruling requests! -useful for you to prepare -helpful and not wasteful for your client and judge

14