State Court Motion in Limine - Maryland

MOTION IN LIMINE

(State of Maryland — Circuit Court for [________________] County)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Notice of Motion and Hearing
3. Motion in Limine
4. Evidence Sought to Be Excluded

5. Memorandum of Law in Support
   5.1 Introduction
   5.2 Legal Standard
   5.3 Argument — Grounds for Exclusion
   5.4 Request to Instruct and Admonish

6. Request for Oral Argument

7. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief
8. Signature Block
9. Certificate of Service
10. Exhibit A — Proposed Order

1. CAPTION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR [________________] COUNTY, MARYLAND

Hearing Date: [________________]
Hearing Time: [________________]
Courtroom: [________________]
Judge: Hon. [________________]

2. NOTICE OF MOTION AND HEARING

TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on [Hearing Date] at [Hearing Time], or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in [Courtroom] of the above-entitled court, located at [Courthouse Address, City, Maryland], before the Honorable [Judge Name], [Plaintiff / Defendant] [Moving Party Name] ("Movant") will, and hereby does, move this Court in limine, pursuant to Md. Rules 5-401 through 5-403 and the additional authorities set forth below, for an order before trial precluding the opposing party, its counsel, and its witnesses from offering, mentioning, referring to, or eliciting the evidence and argument identified herein, in the presence of the jury or the prospective jury panel.

This Motion is based on this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Law, the Maryland Rules of Evidence (Title 5), the pleadings and records on file in this action, and any further evidence or argument presented at or before the hearing.

DATED: [________________]

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: ______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
[MD Bar No. ________________]
[FIRM ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[TELEPHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorneys for [Moving Party]

3. MOTION IN LIMINE

[Moving Party Name] ("Movant"), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Md. Rules 5-401, 5-402, and 5-403 and the additional rules cited below, respectfully moves this Court for an order in limine ruling, before any such evidence is offered, displayed, or mentioned at trial, that the matters described in Section 4 are inadmissible and shall be excluded. A motion in limine permits the Court to rule on admissibility outside the hearing of the jury so that prejudicial matter is never placed before the jurors and the need for curative instructions — which may be insufficient to undo the harm — is avoided. In support, Movant relies on the accompanying Memorandum of Law and requests oral argument under Md. Rule 2-311(f).

4. EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE EXCLUDED

Movant seeks an order excluding the following categories of evidence, testimony, argument, and reference (select and complete each applicable item; renumber as needed):

☐ (a) [Describe specific evidence/testimony/exhibit — e.g., "any reference to the prior, unrelated [year] traffic citation issued to Plaintiff"].
☐ (b) [________________________________].
☐ (c) [________________________________].
☐ (d) [________________________________].
☐ (e) [________________________________].

5. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION IN LIMINE

5.1 Introduction

This case is set for trial on [__/__/____]. Movant anticipates that the opposing party will attempt to introduce the matters identified in Section 4, none of which is admissible under the Maryland Rules of Evidence. Because the mere mention of these matters before the jury would cause unfair prejudice that no instruction could fully cure, Movant asks the Court to rule on admissibility now, in limine, and to instruct counsel and witnesses accordingly.

5.2 Legal Standard

Relevance — Md. Rules 5-401 and 5-402. "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Md. Rule 5-401. Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible. Md. Rule 5-402.

Unfair Prejudice — Md. Rule 5-403. Even relevant evidence "may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Md. Rule 5-403.

Character and Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts — Md. Rule 5-404. Evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity therewith; and evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity therewith, though it may be admissible for another purpose (e.g., motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake). Impeachment by character for truthfulness and by prior convictions is governed by Md. Rules 5-608 and 5-609.

Subsequent Remedial Measures — Md. Rule 5-407. When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of those subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect, or a need for a warning or instruction.

Compromise and Offers — Md. Rule 5-408. Evidence of furnishing, offering, or accepting a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim, and conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations, are not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of a disputed claim.

Liability Insurance — Md. Rule 5-411. Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible on the issue of whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.

Hearsay — Md. Rules 5-801 et seq. Out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted are inadmissible unless they fall within an exclusion or exception.

Expert Testimony / Reliability — Md. Rule 5-702; DAUBERT. Expert testimony may be admitted only if the court determines that it will assist the trier of fact, and the court must determine (1) whether the witness is qualified as an expert; (2) the appropriateness of the expert testimony on the particular subject; and (3) whether a sufficient factual basis exists to support the expert testimony. Md. Rule 5-702. Maryland has adopted the Daubert standard for the admissibility of expert testimony, abandoning the former Frye-Reed "general acceptance" test. Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020); see Md. Rule 5-702 (cross-referencing Rochkind). The trial court serves as gatekeeper and must ensure that expert opinions rest on a reliable methodology reliably applied to the facts.

Golden Rule / Sympathy / Improper Argument. Argument inviting jurors to place themselves in a party's position ("golden rule" argument), or appealing to passion, prejudice, sympathy, or community sentiment rather than the evidence, is improper and should be precluded.

5.3 Argument — Grounds for Exclusion

GROUND 1 — Irrelevant Evidence (Md. Rules 5-401, 5-402). The evidence described in Section 4[____] has no tendency to make any fact of consequence more or less probable. Because [explain why the matter has no bearing on the claims or defenses: ________________________________], it is irrelevant and inadmissible under Md. Rule 5-402.

GROUND 2 — Unfair Prejudice Substantially Outweighs Probative Value (Md. Rule 5-403). Even if marginally relevant, the evidence described in Section 4[____] should be excluded because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, and waste of time. Specifically, [explain the prejudicial effect and why no limiting instruction would cure it: ________________________________].

GROUND 3 — Improper Character / Prior Bad Acts (Md. Rules 5-404, 5-608, 5-609). The evidence described in Section 4[____] is offered only to suggest that [party/witness] acted in conformity with a character trait or prior act and is therefore inadmissible propensity evidence. It serves no permitted purpose under Md. Rule 5-404(b), and any impeachment use is barred or limited by Md. Rules 5-608 and 5-609 because [________________________________].

GROUND 4 — Inadmissible Hearsay (Md. Rules 5-801 et seq.). The statement(s) described in Section 4[____] are out-of-court statements offered for their truth and fall within no exclusion or exception. [Identify statement and declarant: ________________________________].

GROUND 5 — Subsequent Remedial Measures (Md. Rule 5-407). The evidence described in Section 4[____] concerns measures taken after the [incident/injury] that would have made the harm less likely, offered to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect, or a need for a warning, and is therefore inadmissible. [Describe: ________________________________].

GROUND 6 — Settlement / Compromise (Md. Rule 5-408). The evidence described in Section 4[____] concerns settlement communications or offers of compromise and is inadmissible to prove or disprove the validity or amount of the disputed claim. [Describe: ________________________________].

GROUND 7 — Liability Insurance (Md. Rule 5-411). Any reference to whether a party is or is not insured against liability is inadmissible on the issue of fault and is unfairly prejudicial. [Describe: ________________________________].

GROUND 8 — Unreliable Expert Opinion (Md. Rule 5-702; Rochkind / Daubert). The opinion(s) of [expert name] described in Section 4[____] should be excluded because the testimony fails the Daubert/Rule 5-702 gatekeeping requirements: the witness is not qualified, the subject is inappropriate for expert testimony, and/or no sufficient factual basis or reliable methodology supports the opinion. Specifically, [identify the methodological deficiency — e.g., untested theory, no peer review, unknown error rate, analytical gap, ipse dixit: ________________________________].

GROUND 9 — Golden-Rule / Sympathy / Improper Argument. The opposing party should be precluded from making "golden rule" appeals, inviting jurors to imagine themselves or their family members in a party's position, or otherwise appealing to passion, sympathy, or prejudice rather than the evidence. [Describe anticipated improper argument: ________________________________].

GROUND 10 — [Additional Ground]. [State rule and basis: ________________________________].

5.4 Request to Instruct Counsel and Admonish Witnesses

Because the prejudice from even a single improper reference may be incurable, Movant respectfully requests that the Court, if it grants this Motion:

1. Instruct opposing counsel to refrain from offering, mentioning, or alluding to the excluded matters — directly or indirectly — in voir dire, opening statement, examination of witnesses, exhibits, or closing argument;
2. Direct opposing counsel to admonish and instruct each of its witnesses, before they testify, not to volunteer, mention, or refer to the excluded matters in the presence of the jury;
3. Require that, before any party seeks to offer, reference, or elicit any excluded matter, counsel first approach the bench and obtain a ruling outside the hearing of the jury; and
4. Reserve to Movant all objections and the right to seek a mistrial or other appropriate relief in the event of a violation.

6. REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Pursuant to Md. Rule 2-311(f), Movant respectfully requests a hearing and oral argument on this Motion. A pretrial ruling will streamline the trial, avoid sidebar interruptions, and prevent the jury's exposure to inadmissible and prejudicial matter.

7. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Movant [Moving Party Name] respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

1. Grant this Motion in Limine;
2. Exclude the categories of evidence, testimony, argument, and reference identified in Section 4;
3. Instruct counsel and admonish witnesses as set forth in Section 5.4;
4. Require advance notice and a bench conference before any party offers or references the excluded matters; and
5. Enter the Proposed Order attached as Exhibit A and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

8. SIGNATURE BLOCK

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: ______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
[MD Bar No. ________________]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[TELEPHONE] | [EMAIL]
Counsel for [Moving Party]

Dated: [__/__/____]

9. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ______ day of [________________], 20____, a copy of the foregoing Motion in Limine and proposed Order was served pursuant to Md. Rule 1-321 on:

[Opposing Counsel Name]
[Firm Name]
[Address]
[City, State ZIP]
[Email]

via [MDEC e-service / first-class mail, postage prepaid / hand delivery].

______________________________
[Attorney Name]

EXHIBIT A — PROPOSED ORDER

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR [________________] COUNTY, MARYLAND

ORDER GRANTING MOTION IN LIMINE

Upon consideration of [Moving Party]'s Motion in Limine, any opposition thereto, and argument of counsel, it is this ______ day of [________________], 20____, by the Circuit Court for [________________] County, Maryland,

ORDERED, that the Motion in Limine is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that the opposing party, its counsel, and its witnesses are precluded from offering, mentioning, referring to, or eliciting the following before the jury, absent a prior ruling of this Court obtained outside the hearing of the jury:

☐ [________________________________]
☐ [________________________________]
☐ [________________________________]

and it is further

ORDERED, that counsel shall instruct and admonish each of their witnesses to comply with this Order; and it is further

ORDERED, that before offering or referencing any excluded matter, counsel shall first approach the bench and obtain a ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________
Judge, Circuit Court for [________________] County, Maryland

Sources and References

• Maryland Rule 5-401 (Definition of "Relevant Evidence") — https://govt.westlaw.com/mdc/
• Maryland Rule 5-402 (Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible)
• Maryland Rule 5-403 (Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time)
• Maryland Rule 5-404 (Character Evidence; Other Crimes) and Rules 5-608, 5-609 (Impeachment)
• Maryland Rule 5-407 (Subsequent Remedial Measures); Rule 5-408 (Compromise); Rule 5-411 (Liability Insurance)
• Maryland Rule 5-702 (Testimony by Experts) — https://govt.westlaw.com/mdc/Document/N70A26650EA9511EBBE35EA738D8E1915
• Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020) (Maryland adopts Daubert) — https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2020/47a19.pdf
• Maryland Rule 2-311 (Motions; Request for Hearing)
• Maryland Rules of Evidence (Title 5), Maryland Judiciary — https://mdcourts.gov/