Plaintiff's Motions in Limine Prior to an Injury Accident Trial

The purpose of a lawsuit is to afford parties an opportunity to resolve disputes before a tribunal. Litigation has its benefits. For one, the force of law controls. A party cannot ignore procedural rules without facing sanctions. Two, the result will be binding. A judgement from a court of law will be enforced. Finally, three, parties can have their day in court.

Lawsuits rarely result in a trial by jury, however. Most cases are resolved short of trial -- by way of mediation, or by settlement negotiated by the attorneys. Nevertheless, a trial attorney should treat every case as if it is going to trial. This mindset will help maximize the case value.

Part of preparing for trial lies in procedural strategies. One such strategy is controlling the evidence admitted during the trial. Motions, or requests to the judge, can be made before the jury is impaneled. Motions in limine are made to exclude certain evidence from being heard by the jury. There are a few motions in limine that should be considered in every case.

"Character evidence," or evidence of a person's past conduct unrelated to the case, is not allowed. Thus, if a plaintiff has been involved in prior lawsuits, or had been found at fault in another case, a motion should be made to protect the plaintiff. A jury may consider "character evidence" as evidence to prove conduct in the relevant case. The law prohibits that line of thinking. The present evidence should be considered alone without the information of what may or may not have happened in a separate case.

Another popular motion limits the ability of the defendant to introduce evidence not already disclosed to the plaintiff. During pre-trial litigation, discovery is completed by both sides. When a party responds to discovery, they should be held to their responses. New or contradictory evidence can be excluded with a motion in limine. For example, a defendant will assert his defense contentions during discovery. Let's say Danny the Defendant stated in his response to an interrogatory that he was not negligent because the plaintiff ran a red light. During trial though, Danny the Defendant tries to testify that he was not negligent because the signal was defective. His testimony can be excluded because it is inconsistent with his discovery response.

Motions in limine regarding experts are common as well. Medical experts are utilized in almost every motor vehicle accident case. In order for the plaintiff to prove damages, it is helpful to have a doctor discuss the plaintiff's medical treatment, and future medical treatment that may be necessary. It gives the jury information about the extent of money that has been spent or will have to be spent.

A plaintiff attorney should anticipate the content of the defendant's medical expert's opinions. An expert must disclose all of his opinions during a deposition when asked. If an expert tries to give a new or different opinion during trial, it could be devastating to the plaintiff's case. Thus, a motion in limine should be filed so that the defendant's expert's opinions are limited to the opinions given during deposition.

Trial results are unpredictable. Juries have been known to surprise attorneys. It is important, then, for attorneys to do everything in their power to control the process. Motions in limine are one way of giving the plaintiff an opportunity to win.

What is Discovery in a Criminal Case?

A defendant in a criminal case will naturally be afraid of what could happen to him or her. Misdemeanor and felony charges carry the potential for jail and prison time. In addition, defendants face the possibility of future scrutiny in their employment prospects and personal reputation.

The first two questions usually asked by a defendant are: "What did I do? What evidence does the prosecution have?" The process by which a defense attorney obtains the evidence is called "discovery." Discovery is the opportunity for the defendant to find out what kind of case the prosecution will present against the defendant.

During the pre-trial stage of a case, discovery is undertaken by both the defense attorney and prosecuting attorney. Both sides are required to discuss their case. There are not supposed to be surprises at trial. Legal dramas on television and movies are not representative of a majority of real cases.

Discovery is done informally, at first. Sometimes the Judge presiding over the case will have to be involved to handle disputes. Common disputes arise when a defense attorney has reason to believe that the prosecution has not handed over particular evidence. The prosecution must turn over certain evidence, such as:

• witness names and the content of their testimony
• "real evidence," or physical evidence
• evidence that is favorable to the defendant, i.e. "exculpatory"
• felony history of any witnesses for purposes of impeachment
• any "relevant" recorded or written statements

Sometimes attorneys disagree as to what is relevant. A judge will rule once a motion is made by one of the parties. Defense attorneys should be aggressive in pursuing disclosure.

Certain legal principles are supposed to protect a defendant as well. For example, "Brady" violations occur when a prosecutor intentionally withholds exculpatory evidence. Recently, the United States Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Alex Kozinski, criticized California state judges for allowing prosecutorial misconduct. He said that there is an "epidemic of Brady violations..."

Regardless of misconduct or not, it is important for defendants to be aware of their rights. Discovery is important to a case. Sometimes it will lead to a defense verdict. Other times it can help facilitate a favorable plea deal. If you have been charged with a crime, it is important to consult with an attorney. Evidence and its impact on your case can be discussed.

Criminal DNA Testing

DNA testing under the microscope

With the proliferation of CSI type crime dramas over the last few years, many people from Juries to the lay public have come to assume that DNA testing is a quick and foolproof way of proving the guilt or innocence of a criminal suspect. In fact, some experts even worry that this “CSI culture” is invading the purview of the courts; leading juries to expect and even demand DNA evidence from the prosecution even in cases where such evidence would add little of substance to the analysis. Adding to the confusion are the range of media reports, some of which warn about the possible inaccuracies of DNA testing procedures and others which hail the ways in which the technology has been used to absolve and free convicted criminals.

However, despite the media hype and many public misconceptions to the contrary, DNA testing is a highly reliable and accurate method of matching a sample with a donor, or of proving that no match exists. But, this accuracy depends entirely on the methods used, the care and skill of investigators and lab specialists, and the presentation of the resulting evidence by lawyers during trial.

What is DNA testing?

DNA testing is the process of comparing a sample of DNA, such as from a crime scene, to a potential suspect; a match implying the suspect’s presence at the scene. This is possible because every person’s DNA is unique, distinct in some way from every other person who has ever lived or who will live – with the exception of identical twins who share exact DNA. However, while each individual’s DNA is unique to that person, current testing methods do not allow for a complete DNA profile.

Methods are improving however. First developed in 1985 by British scientist Alec Jefferys and colleagues, DNA testing has come a long way from the early days, both in quality and cost. Analyses that once required a fresh tissue sample the size of a quarter can now be completed with just a few partially degraded cells from a cold case file. Tests which were once impossible, such as distinguishing individual DNA profiles from the mixed semen of multiple rapists, have now become common place and DNA testing has even been used to compare non-human samples, such as the seeds of a tree which were used to tie a suspect to a crime scene in one recent Arizona case.

How accurate is a match?

The entirety of a DNA sample is not currently tested. Instead, sections known to vary substantially among humans are sampled and compared. While any single sample site has about a 7.5% chance of matching another random human, insufficient for criminal identification, the odds increase exponentially with every additional sample site considered. At about 4 to 6 sample sites – called markers – identification becomes reasonably possible. For good measure, the standard FBI test compares 13 markers, leading to greater than 1 in 1 billion certainty that a suspect is in fact the person who left the sample. In other words, by comparing 13 quality (which means highly variable) markers, less than 7 people in the entire population will be statistically probable matches. Given that the pool of suspects cannot ever include the entire population of the planet, this level of certainty can provide the evidence necessary for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

(For more details on these numbers please visit here)

What’s the catch?

Naturally, there are some caveats about the numbers listed above. While the statistics are solid, they have been tested repeatedly by many different mathematicians and scientists the world over, the accuracy of any purported match comes down to process; and here is where CSI type shows drive unreasonable expectations about DNA results. As with much of the criminal justice system, human error is a major factor. Collecting DNA samples from a crime scene often requires expert training and professional equipment. Samples must then be transferred and stored in approved ways to avoid degradation. A qualified lab must properly utilize expensive edge equipment to analyze the sample to produce a DNA profile. That profile is then compared against either a sample taken from a suspect or against one of the many available databases of DNA profiles, which imply a number of privacy and security concerns, and a match determined.

Every step of this process is fraught with potential error. Crime scenes can be contaminated or evidence planted, samples can become contaminated or degrade, labs might employ outdated techniques or scientists might not have the requisite training, computer error could be introduced, jurors might give too much weight to DNA evidence; and all along the way, human malfeasance might undermine the validity of a match. And all this stems from but a single situation; a single trial.

Institutionalization

While for individuals the results of a single DNA match are of the utmost importance, whether the evidence is being used to convict or exonerate, for the criminal justice system – and its promise of fairness and justice for the public as a whole – systemic problems become the more critical consideration. On this level, a number of issues must be dealt with if DNA testing is to remain a viable tool in criminal prosecutions.

Evidence from analysis of the UKs national DNA database shows that a disproportionate number of the DNA profiles in the system come from minorities. While it can be argued that this represents the increased prevalence of minority convictions, the increasing use of so called “cold matches” wherein DNA from every arrested person is periodically checked against the database, leads to possibilities of institutionalized racism and prejudice. Additionally, the increasingly popular practice of collecting samples from arrestees prior to any conviction is leading to a number of very serious privacy and security considerations. DNA samples can, in addition to providing material for a possible match to a criminal investigation, also reveal family connections, expose health conditions, and even predict sexual orientation or inclinations.

Protecting the future

DNA profiling has become an increasingly important feature of our criminal justice system, both exonerating the innocent and convicting previously unreachable suspects; however its future use is imperiled by a growing number of developing problems with the practice. More must be done to protect this valuable criminal justice resource from corruption, error, and prejudice.  The worrisome backlog of untested samples should be cut down, and the public at large – many of whom ultimately become jurors – must be better informed about the accuracy, and potential shortfalls, of the science.

Trial Process and Rights

Right to a Speedy Trial

Many people are aware of at least some of their constitutional rights during a criminal investigation. They know less, however, about the trial process. This is partly because a large portion of suspects are either released or take a plea-deal long before a trial ever gets under way. It is also because the trial process can be very different depending on the defendant, the crime, or the legal strategy employed. I will attempt to cover the basics in this article, but you should always talk to a competent attorney about specific strategies for your case.

6^th Amendment Guarantees

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that every person accused of a crime has a right to a jury trial, along with a right to confront witnesses, obtain his/her own witnesses, and have competent representation. This may be one of the most important parts of the Constitution from a criminal perspective because it is the foundation of our system of justice. Without the protections afforded in the Sixth Amendment it would be hard to place much faith in a conviction.

Judge or Jury?

A trial is an opportunity for a defendant’s guilt to be judged by a neutral party. Prosecutors and law enforcement have a duty to seek guilt. This does not mean that they are doing unfair things, but their role in the process necessarily gives them a stake in the outcome and thus disqualifies them as finders of fact. While the Sixth Amendment creates a right to a trial before a jury, defendants have a related right to waive the jury process and have their case decided by a judge.

There are times when the specific facts of a case point towards a judge, whom may have many years of legal experience, as the most neutral party. For example, the two teens recently convicted for the now infamous Steubenville rape incident chose to have their case tried to a judge. I suspect that their decision was based on a fear that the wild media fervor surrounding the case would make selection of a fair and impartial jury nearly impossible. Those defendants were ultimately convicted, and in hindsight it is not clear whether their choice of waiving their right to a jury was a wise decision, but defendants usually have a choice.

Presenting Evidence

Regardless of whether a case is tried to a jury or a judge, the trial will proceed in a similar fashion. Both sides, the defense and the prosecution, will have an opportunity to present evidence. The prosecution will go first and the defense last.  Prior to the trial, the prosecution and defense will always attempt to limit the admissible evidence by way of pre-trial motions. During a trial, the prosecution bears the burden of proving a defendant’s guilt – the highest burden in the law. Theoretically, a defendant faced with a weak case, could sit silently throughout the entire process and merely trust in the finder of fact to see through the holes in the prosecution’s evidence. This, however, is very unwise in most situations.

Confronting Witnesses

In practice, defendants will usually want to present the best evidence in their favor, and to attack the evidence presented by the other side. Here again, the Sixth Amendment comes into play. The amendment gives defendants a right to do several important things. First, defendants have a general right to demand that witnesses against them testify in court. There are some limitations, such as children in sexual abuse cases, but generally the prosecution has to bring witnesses into court. This is critical because if helps to ensure that witnesses give a true account of events. It also gives a defendant the right to cross-examine those witnesses to probe for errors, biases, or coercion.

Presenting Witnesses

The Constitution also guarantees defendants the right to present witnesses in their defense.  This means that defendants can bring in people who might tell a story more favorable to their explanation of the facts. Such witnesses, if available, are critical because they will help a defendant tell his/her story to the fact finder. Without this piece of the puzzle, the judge or jury would hear only about a persons supposed guilt, nothing more. This right also gives defendants the power to compel witnesses to appear on their behalf, such as with a subpoena.

Closing Arguments

Once all witnesses have had a chance to testify in court, both sides will give closing arguments which are essentially short summations of the evidence as seen by that side. Once this is done, the finder of fact will make a determination and the trial is over. While all of this seems fairly straight forward, and often it is there are many important considerations along the way which are best made with the help of a qualified attorney.

Defendant Testimony

One very important decision every defendant must make is whether or not to personally testify. Defendants have a right to speak on their own behalf, but this is not always wise. The Fifth Amendment gives suspects and defendants a right to refuse to answer questions - the answer to which may further incriminate the defendant. In other words, you cannot be compelled to admit a crime. There are times when a defendant will absolutely want to get on the stand and tell their story, but often doing so exposes a defendant to unpleasant questions on cross-examination. For example, it may open the door for evidence of the defendant’s past convictions.

You need an attorney!

Because of the complexities of the many other nuances and choices present in every trial, you should absolutely discuss these options with your own attorney. Choosing unwisely can potentially destroy your case. If you have been charged with a crime please contact me right away so that we can work together to make sure you make best use of your critical Constitutional rights.