State Court Motion in Limine - Nebraska

MOTION IN LIMINE AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

(State of Nebraska — District Court of [________________] County)

TEMPLATE INSTRUCTIONS

☐ Replace every bracketed placeholder with case-specific information
☐ For any expert challenge, frame it in terms of the Daubert/Schafersman reliability factors (§ 27-702)
☐ Cite the Nebraska Evidence Rules by statute/Rule number (§ 27-401 to 403, 404, 407, 408, 411, 702)
☐ If a ground is denied before trial, object on that ground when the evidence is offered at trial to preserve the issue
☐ Remove all template instructions and guidance notes before filing

1. CAPTION

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [________________] COUNTY, NEBRASKA

Case No.: [________________]
Judge: Hon. [________________]
Trial Date: [__/__/____]

2. MOTION IN LIMINE

COMES NOW [Moving Party Name] ("Movant"), by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Court, in advance of trial, for an order prohibiting [Opposing Party Name], its counsel, and its witnesses from offering, mentioning, eliciting, referring to, or in any manner conveying to the jury — directly or indirectly — any of the matters set forth below, without first approaching the bench and obtaining a ruling outside the presence and hearing of the jury.

The specific uses of evidence identified below fall within the cited Nebraska Evidence Rules. Movant seeks a ruling before any reference to them before the jury for the reasons stated for each selected ground. This Motion is supported by the following Brief in Support.

3. BRIEF IN SUPPORT

3.1 Introduction

This case is set for jury trial on [__/__/____]. Movant anticipates that, absent an order in limine, [Opposing Party] will attempt to introduce the particular evidence or argument identified below. Movant asks for a pretrial ruling so that any question about admissibility can be addressed before the jury hears the matter.

3.2 Legal Standard

Relevance — Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-401, 27-402. "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of a fact of consequence more or less probable. All relevant evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided; irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.

Unfair prejudice — Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403. Although 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.

Character and prior acts — Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404. Evidence of a person's character is not admissible to prove action in conformity therewith; evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is inadmissible to prove character but may be admissible for another purpose, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

Subsequent remedial measures — Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-407. Evidence of measures taken after an event that would have made the event less likely to occur is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct, though it may be admissible for another purpose, such as ownership, control, feasibility (if controverted), or impeachment.

Compromise — Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-408. Compromise evidence concerning a claim disputed as to validity or amount is not admissible to prove liability, invalidity, or amount. The rule does not exclude otherwise discoverable evidence merely because it was presented in negotiations, and it permits evidence offered for another purpose, including witness bias.

Liability insurance — Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-411. Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove negligent or otherwise wrongful conduct. It may be offered for another purpose, such as agency, ownership, control, or witness bias.

Expert testimony — Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-702 (Daubert/Schafersman). A witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify if specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact. The trial court assesses relevance and reliability under the framework described in State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575, 856 N.W.2d 310 (2014). Depending on the proposed opinion, relevant factors may include testing, peer review, error rate, standards, and general acceptance. An expert challenge should identify the particular validity, reliability, relevance, and qualification issues in a concise pretrial motion.

Golden-rule argument. An invitation for jurors to place themselves in a party's position is improper; identify the anticipated argument and explain the risk of prejudice in this case. Anderson v. Babbe, 304 Neb. 186, 933 N.W.2d 813 (2019).

3.3 Specific Matters To Be Excluded

Ground 1 — Irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial evidence of [________________________________].
This evidence has no tendency to prove any fact of consequence; even if marginally relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion under §§ 27-401 to 27-403.

Ground 2 — Character evidence and prior bad acts of [________________].
Inadmissible under § 27-404 to show conduct in conformity, and offered for no proper non-propensity purpose.

Ground 3 — Subsequent remedial measures.
[Repairs / design changes / policy changes] taken after [the event] should be excluded under § 27-407 when offered to prove negligence or culpable conduct. [EXPLAIN WHY NO OTHER PERMITTED PURPOSE, SUCH AS CONTROVERTED CONTROL, FEASIBILITY, OR IMPEACHMENT, SUPPORTS ADMISSION.]

Ground 4 — Compromise and settlement negotiations.
[IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC COMPROMISE OFFER OR NEGOTIATION STATEMENT] concerning the disputed claim [IDENTIFY] should be excluded under § 27-408 to the extent it is offered to prove liability, invalidity, or amount. [EXPLAIN WHY NO PERMITTED OTHER PURPOSE OR OTHERWISE DISCOVERABLE EVIDENCE IS AT ISSUE.]

Ground 5 — Liability insurance.
Evidence that [PERSON] was or was not insured against liability should be excluded under § 27-411 if offered to prove that the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. [ADDRESS ANY ASSERTED OTHER PURPOSE, SUCH AS BIAS, AGENCY, OWNERSHIP, OR CONTROL.]

Ground 6 — Unreliable expert opinion of [Expert Name].
The opinions of [Expert Name] fail the gatekeeping requirements of § 27-702 and Herrera because [IDENTIFY THE PARTICULAR METHODOLOGY AND WHY ITS TESTING, PEER REVIEW, ERROR RATE, OPERATING STANDARDS, OR GENERAL ACCEPTANCE DOES NOT SUPPORT RELIABILITY; ADDRESS FIT AND QUALIFICATIONS AS APPLICABLE]. The opinion should be excluded.

Ground 7 — Hearsay statements of [________________].
[Out-of-court statement] offered for the truth of the matter asserted is hearsay under § 27-801(3). [EXPLAIN WHY NO § 27-801(4) EXCLUSION OR § 27-803 OR § 27-804 EXCEPTION APPLIES.]

Ground 8 — Golden-rule argument.
Counsel should be barred from asking jurors to place themselves or their loved ones in a party's position. [IDENTIFY THE ANTICIPATED ARGUMENT AND EXPLAIN ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT IN THIS CASE.]

Ground 9 — [Additional ground: ________________________________].
[State the evidence and the basis for exclusion.]

3.4 Relief Requested

WHEREFORE, Movant respectfully requests that the Court:

1. GRANT this Motion in Limine and enter an order excluding each category of evidence and argument identified above;
2. INSTRUCT counsel for [Opposing Party] to refrain from any direct or indirect reference to the excluded matters in voir dire, opening statement, examination of witnesses, exhibits, or closing argument;
3. DIRECT counsel for [Opposing Party] to admonish and instruct each of its witnesses, before testifying, not to mention or volunteer any of the excluded matters in the presence of the jury;
4. REQUIRE that, before any party offers or attempts to elicit any excluded matter, counsel first approach the bench and obtain a ruling outside the presence and hearing of the jury; and
5. GRANT such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

DATED: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

4. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on [__/__/____], a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel of record via the Nebraska eFiling system or as indicated below:

[Opposing Counsel Name] | [Firm] | [Address] | [Email]

Service method: ☐ Nebraska eFiling ☐ U.S. Mail ☐ Email ☐ Hand delivery

______________________________
[Attorney Name], [Neb. Bar No. ________________]

5. [PROPOSED] ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [________________] COUNTY, NEBRASKA

Case No.: [________________]

ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE

Upon consideration of Movant's Motion in Limine, any response, and the applicable law, the Court ORDERS as follows as to each numbered ground:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall instruct their witnesses to comply with this Order and shall approach the bench before referring to any matter excluded above.

DATED this ______ day of ________________, 20____.

______________________________
District Court Judge

Sources and References

• Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-702 — Rule 702. Testimony by experts (with annotations): https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=27-702
• Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-401 to 27-403 (relevance/prejudice); 27-404 (character); 27-407 (subsequent remedial measures); 27-408 (compromise); 27-411 (liability insurance)
• State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575, 856 N.W.2d 310 (2014) — expert gatekeeping and pretrial challenge: https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00004784PUB
• State v. Martinez, 306 Neb. 516, 946 N.W.2d 445 (2020) — trial objection after an overruled motion in limine: https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00012563PUB
• Anderson v. Babbe, 304 Neb. 186, 933 N.W.2d 813 (2019) — Golden Rule argument: https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewCertified?docId=N00012086PUB