Opinion
NO. 2:09-CR-38.
August 5, 2009
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on: (1) Government'S Motion in Limine to Prohibit Reference to any Penalties the Defendant May Face, filed on July 21, 2009 [DE 98]; (2) Government's Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Impeachment of Government Witnesses with Prior "Bad Acts" Including Arrests that Have not Resulted in Convictions, filed on July 21, 2009 [DE 99]; and (3) Government's Motion in Limine to Preclude Cross-Examination, Defense Evidence, and Defense Argument on Irrelevant Collateral Matters Concerning the Legality of the Traffic Stop, filed on July 21, 2009 [DE 101].
For the reasons set forth below, Government'S Motion in Limine to Prohibit Reference to any Penalties the Defendant May Face is GRANTED; Government's Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Impeachment of Government Witnesses with Prior "Bad Acts" Including Arrests that Have not Resulted in Convictions is GRANTED; and Government's Motion in Limine to Preclude Cross-Examination, Defense Evidence, and Defense Argument on Irrelevant Collateral Matters Concerning the Legality of the Traffic Stop is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
This Court's authority to manage trials includes the power to exclude evidence pursuant to motions in limine. Falk v. Kimberly Servs., Inc., 1997 WL 201568, *1 (N.D. Ill. 1997). Denial of a motion in limine does not automatically mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion will be admitted at trial. Hawthorne Partners v. AT T Techs. Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Likewise, the granting of a motion in limine does not automatically mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion will be rejected at trial. Instead, the Court will entertain objections to individual proffers as they occur at trial. Id. In any event, this Court is "free, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to alter a previous in limine ruling." Luce v. U.S., 469 U.S. 38, 41-42 (1984). With these principles in mind, this Court turns to the present motions.
References to Penalties Defendant May Face
Impeachment of Government Witnesses with Prior "Bad Acts" Including Arrests that Have not Resulted in Convictions
GRANTED.
What is clear is that Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) prohibits evidence about arrests and other prior misconduct for impeachment purposes unless it bears on the witness' truthfulness. Because there is room for disagreement on what may bear on a witness' truthfulness, and that inquire may be fact sensitive, it seems prudent to use caution when venturing into the area of prior bad acts. For that reason, this Court GRANTS the Government's motion. There are certainly some circumstances where evidence of bad acts may be admissible. But, in this case, the Defendant's attorney will be required to approach the bench for a ruling prior to impeaching Government witnesses regarding prior bad acts.
Cross-Examination, Defense Evidence, and Defense Argument on Irrelevant Collateral Matters Concerning the Legality of the Traffic Stop
CONCLUSION
DENIED. GRANTED; GRANTED; DENIED.