The Need For and Application of a Motion in Limine
Post 5153
Lawyers Present & Argue Motions in Limine to Control Trial Excess
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gBv_pukH and at https://lnkd.in/gnX4tyXK, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5100 posts.
In United States Of America v. Scharmaine Lawson Baker, Criminal Action No. 24-99, USDC, E.D. Louisiana (July 7, 2025) Scharmaine Lawson Baker was charged with six counts of health care fraud. She pled not guilty, and her trial was scheduled.
BACKGROUND
Government’s Omnibus Motion in Limine
The Government filed an omnibus motion in limine which included several requests to exclude certain types of evidence and arguments.
Exclusion of Evidence and Argument Related to Specific Instances of “Good Deeds” and “Law-Abidingness”
The Government argued that such evidence is irrelevant and improper character evidence.
The Court granted the motion, stating that the defendant’s character is not an essential element of the charges.
Testimony About Defendant’s Own Hearsay Statements
The Government sought to preclude the defendant from introducing her own self-serving statements as inadmissible hearsay.
The Court deferred ruling on this request, requiring specific statements to be identified for admissibility assessment.
Use of Interview Reports to Impeach Government Witnesses
The Government requested to preclude the defendant from using interview reports to impeach witnesses unless the statements were verbatim or adopted by the witnesses.
The Court deferred ruling, requiring a factual determination on the nature of the statements.
Unopposed Motions in Limine
The Court granted several unopposed motions, including:
Exclusion of arguments suggesting selective prosecution.
Preclusion of comments on the Government’s failure to call a particular witness.
Exclusion of plea negotiations and related statements.
Exclusion of evidence blaming Medicare as the victim.
Exclusion of evidence related to harm or prejudice caused by the indictment.
Preclusion of arguments for acquittal based on reasons other than evidence and law.
DISCUSSION
Evidence And Argument Related To Specific Instances Of “Good Deeds” And “Law Abidingness”
The government argued that evidence and argument related to specific instances of “good deeds” and “law-abidingness,” including evidence of defendant’s legitimate billing or legitimate services, as circumstantial proof that she is not guilty, should be excluded. Defendant argued that honesty is a pertinent character trait to 18 U.S.C. § 1347, and defendant should not be precluded from introducing any character evidence.
Federal Rules of Evidence 404 states: “Evidence of a person’s character is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.”
Defendant was charged with six counts of health care fraud. Defendant’s character is not an essential element of the charges against her. Accordingly, the Court granted the government’s motion to exclude evidence and argument related to specific instances of “good deeds” and “law abidingness.”
Testimony About Defendant’s Own Hearsay Statements To Witnesses Or Other Third Parties
The government asked to preclude defendant from attempting to elicit or admit her own self-serving statements made to law enforcement agents, government investigators, or other witnesses as inadmissible hearsay. Defendant argued that granting the government’s motion would deny defendant the right to respond to inaccuracies, embellishments, and mischaracterizations introduced by the government through the defendant’s inculpatory statements.
Without viewing the statements that defendant seeks to admit, the Court could not rule on a blanket request to prohibit the introduction of defendant’s own statements.
Use Of Interview Reports Prepared By Law Enforcement Agents To Impeach Government Witnesses
The government sought to preclude defendant from introducing an interview report to impeach a witness as a prior inconsistent statement of anyone other than the report’s author. The Court could not issue a blanket ruling without first deciding whether the statements were verbatim, or whether the witnesses had subscribed to or otherwised adopted the statements as their own.
Evidence And Argument That The Defendant Should Be Acquitted For Reasons Other Than The Evidence And The Law
Jury nullification is not a right belonging to the defendant. Jury nullification is not desirable and that trial judges should exercise their power to prevent it when possible. The USDC categorically rejected the idea that, in a society, committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, the Court granted the government’s motion to preclude defendant from introducing evidence and argument that she should be acquitted for reasons other than the evidence and the law.
ZALMA OPINION
The government, faced with a well represented counsel seeking to avoid conviction for health insurance fraud, with evidence that is inappropriate. To protect the government’s case and to reduce irrelevant and useless testimony, the blanket motion in limine was partially successful and the trial judge will rule on other evidentiary attempts during trial when the evidence can be reviewed. The jury in the case will appreciate the limitations on presentation of inappropriate evidence by the defense.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
