Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Brett Duke, Texas Bar # 24012559 The Law Offices of Brett Duke, P.C. 4157 Rio Bravo El Paso, Texas 79902 915-875-0003 915-875-0004 (facsimile) [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff, Cheryl Allred IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Cheryl Allred NO. CIV 03-2343 PHX-DGC Plaintiff, v. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE Corrections Corporation of America, Inc., and Bruno Stolc, Defendants.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Before the voir dire examination of the jury panel, Plaintiff makes this motion in limine to exclude matters that are inadmissible, irrelevant, or prejudicial. If the defendants inject these matters into the trial of this case the defendants will cause irreparable harm which no jury instruction would cure. If any of these matters are directly or indirectly brought to the attention of the jury, the Plaintiff would be compelled to move for a mistrial. In an effort to avoid prejudice and a possible mistrial, Plaintiff urges this motion in limine. 1. 2. Any reference to the filing of this motion. Any evidence, statement, or argument of other crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove

the character of Plaintiff to show Plaintiff acted in conformity with her character and her allegation that she was gang raped. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). 3. Any evidence, statements, or arguments, concerning criminal proceedings and

convictions of the Plaintiff, that do not concern the report of the gang rape. Such matters are not relevant. If deemed relevant, the probative value of admitting evidence

Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC

Document 138

Filed 01/03/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

of the criminal proceedings and convictions does not outweigh its prejudicial effect. See Fed. R. Evid 609(a); 401; 402; 403. 4. Any evidence, statement, or argument that Plaintiff was arrested in 1991

regarding a verbal altercation, family violence, or unlawfully carrying a handgun. Such matters are not relevant. If deemed relevant, the probative value of admitting evidence of the criminal proceedings and convictions does not outweigh its prejudicial effect. See Fed. R. Evid. 609(a); 401; 402; 403. 5. Any opinion by an expert that is not supported by admissible facts. Guillory v.

Dontar Indus., Inc., 95 F.3d 1320, 1331 (5th Cir. 1996). 6. Any evidence by an expert witness that is outside the scope of the expert's

written opinion produced during pretrial discovery. See Thudium v. Allied Prods. Corp., 36 F.3d 767, 767-70 (8th Cir. 1994). 7. Any evidence, statement, or argument that Plaintiff ever used any illegal drugs,

including methamphetamine. Intoxication is not issue in this trial, and this evidence would unduly prejudice the jury against Plaintiff. Such matters are not relevant. If deemed relevant, the probative value of admitting evidence of any illegal drug use does not outweigh its prejudicial effect. See Fed. R. Evid. 401; 402; and 403. 8. Any evidence, statement, or argument that Plaintiff's attorneys have a

contingency fee in the suit. Such matters are not relevant. If deemed relevant, the probative value of admitting such matters does not outweigh its prejudicial effect. See Fed. R. Evid. 401; 402; and 403. 9. Any evidence, statement, or argument that Plaintiff received, applied for, or was

denied any funding for collateral sources for issues concerning the gang rape, including unemployment and social security disability payments. Such matters are not relevant.

2 Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 138 Filed 01/03/2006 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

If deemed relevant, the probative value of admitting such matters does not outweigh its prejudicial effect. See Fed. R. Evid. 401; 402; and 403. 10. Any evidence, statement, or argument concerning the Plaintiff's personal life

such as a previous divorce, abortion, family, and familial history. Such matters are not relevant. If deemed relevant, the probative value of admitting such matters does not outweigh its prejudicial effect. See Fed. R. Evid. 401; 402; and 403. 11. Any evidence, statement, or argument concerning any attempts by the Plaintiff

to commit suicide at any point in her life. Such matters are not relevant. If deemed relevant, the probative value of admitting such matters does not outweigh its prejudicial effect. See Fed. R. Evid. 401; 402; and 403. Prayer For these reasons, Plaintiff asks the Court to instruct defendants and all counsel not to mention, refer to, interrogate about, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, either directly or indirectly, any of these matters without first obtaining the permission of the court, outside the presence and hearing of the jury, and to instruct defendant and all counsel to warn and caution each of their witnesses to follow the same instructions. DATED this 4th day of January, 2006. The Law Offices of Brett Duke, P.C. /s/ Brett Duke Brett Duke 4157 Rio Bravo El Paso, TExas 79902 Attorney for Plaintiff, Cheryl Allred ORIGINAL/COPY of the foregoing served this 4th day of January, 2006 to: Daniel P. Struck / Rachel Halvorson, Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85012, /s/ Brett Duke

26 3 Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 138 Filed 01/03/2006 Page 3 of 3