Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Walkergate: Motion In Limine

Things are still moving below the radar of the mainstream media, but they sure do pique one's curiosity.

I mentioned last week that there is a motion for a deposition of one "Tim L." We still don't know who this person is, but the tips coming in are most intriguing.

On Monday, there was more action which is just as curious.

First, the Court has moved the pretrial date back from September 14 to September 24 due to a scheduling conflict the Court had.

But the really thought-provoking entry is this:
Notice of Motion and State's First Motion In Limine - Business Record Certificates, filed.
First, we need to know what a "Motion in Limine" is. And teh Google is full of entries on this.

According to Law.com, a Motion In Limine is defined as such:
(lim-in-nay) n. Latin for "threshold," a motion made at the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may not be introduced in trial. This is most common in criminal trials where evidence is subject to constitutional limitations, such as statements made without the Miranda warnings (reading the suspect his/her rights).
Wikipedia (yeah, I know) offers a more plain language explanation:
Motion in limine (Latin: "at the start") is a legal written "request" or motion to a judge which can be used for civil or criminal proceedings and at the State or Federal level. A frequent use is at a pre-trial hearing or during an actual trial requesting that the judge rule that certain testimony regarding evidence or information may be included or excluded from the trial. The motion is always discussed outside the presence of the jury and always decided by a judge. The reasons for the motions are wide and varied, but probably the most frequent use of the motion in limine in a criminal trial is to shield the jury from information concerning the defendant which could possibly be unfairly prejudicial to him if heard at trial.[1] Some others arise under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with discovery.[2][3][4]

A motion in limine is used to get a ruling to allow for the inclusion of evidence, not only to get a ruling as to whether or not evidence will be precluded from trial.

Such a motion or order is said to be "in limine", which one commentary states is Latin for "at the outset" They are made "preliminary", and it is presented for consideration of the judge (or arbitrator or hearing officer) to be decided without before the merits are reached.[5]:791
But there is this line as well:
A party proffering certain evidence can also ask for the admission of certain information or evidence via a motion in limine. This tactic can be especially useful if the admissibility of certain evidence critical to that opposing party's case is in doubt.
This is interesting considering that Rindfleisch's attorney, Frank Gimbel, is no slouch and has thrown just about everything but the kitchen sink at the case in, thus far, futile efforts to derail the case.

But it could also be a preemptive move to keep Gimbel from using the egregious propaganda from the right wing "news services" from being a factor and having to waste time and leverage by having them throw in their aspersions about the DA's office and the investigation itself.

Or it could be something entirely different.

But since we have two weeks, at least, before we find out, it sure is fun to speculate on all the possibilities.


  1. Updated Walker Five calendar (seems like this thing keeps changing...):

    Tim Russell
    10-22-2012: Final pre-trial
    11-02-2012: Motion hearing
    12-03-2012: Jury trial
    *3 counts, 1 G, 1 I, 1 Misd. A

    Kevin Kavanaugh
    10-08-2012: Jury trial
    *5 counts, 1 G, 4H

    Kelly Rindfleisch
    09-24-2012: Final pre-trial
    10-11-2012: Hearing
    10-15-2012: Jury trial

    Darlene Wink
    11-21-2012: Sentencing hearing

    Brian Pierick
    09-27-2012: Motion hearing
    12-03-2012: Jury status hearing
    12-11-2012: Jury trial

    So, I added in the count information for Kavanaugh and Russell. It's worth pointing out that Kavanaugh is charged with MUCH more than Russell (5 felonies v. 2). Yet, it is Russell who has had more problems with lawyers, more delays, more motions, and has found himself with two more months before trial (even though they were both charged on the same day). Both men are dirt poor, both men are being charged for more/less the same thing, yet such deviations in their cases.

    Now, we all think we know why this is, but I believe it is worth pointing out that the cases are playing out in a manner consistent with Russell having far more to be worried about than Kavanaugh, even though Kavanaugh, at first, appears to be in much more trouble. I think it really speaks to what we are yet to here and what the folks on the inside have already heard.


  2. I can't wait to be in the front row with my knitting needles clicking, clicking just like Madame DeFarge...waiting for the beheading of Scott Walker's staffers, metaphorically speaking of course.