Opinion
21-20395
09-28-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT CORTEZ BURRELL,Defendants.
ORDER RESERVING RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
ROBERT H. CLELAND, DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant Robert Cortez Burrell has moved to exclude various prior acts and res gestae evidence proposed by the government from being introduced at trial. (ECF No. 42.). The government has filed a response. (ECF No. 48.) Having reviewed the briefings, the court is inclined to agree with the government that the proffered evidence is likely relevant to the res gestae of the matter. However, at this stage of the case, with trial approaching in about a week, the court will reserve its ruling on the motion and deal with the evidentiary issues therein if and when they arise at trial. See United States v. Howell, 17 F.4th 673, 682 (6th Cir. 2021) (“Nothing precludes a district judge from reserving an in limine ruling.”); United States v. Luce, 713 F.2d 1236 (6th Cir. 1983) (“A ruling on a motion in limine is [] essentially an advisory opinion by the trial court. . . It is well established that the court need not rule on a motion in limine.”) (citing cases); Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975) (“Orders in limine which exclude broad categories of evidence should rarely be employed. A better practice is to deal with questions of admissibility of evidence as they arise.”). This will also give the parties a better opportunity to develop the record and their arguments.