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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
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 ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
