Defininition and Explaination – Motion in Limine

Overview

Although both a motion in limine and a motion to suppress deal with evidence, they serve very different purposes in Michigan criminal cases. Understanding the distinction is critical because each motion affects the trial in its own way and relies on different legal standards. Komorn Law regularly litigates both types of motions to protect clients’ constitutional rights and prevent improper evidence from reaching the jury.

What Is a Motion to Suppress?

A motion to suppress asks the court to exclude evidence because it was obtained in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights. These motions typically involve:

• Fourth Amendment illegal searches or seizures
• Fifth Amendment violations (e.g., Miranda issues)
• Sixth Amendment right‑to‑counsel violations
• Unlawful traffic stops
• Invalid warrants
• Coerced statements If the court grants a motion to suppress, the evidence is completely barred from trial because it was unlawfully obtained. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule).

What Is a Motion in Limine?

A motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to decide whether certain evidence should be excluded or allowed before the jury hears it. Unlike a motion to suppress, it does not depend on constitutional violations. Instead, it focuses on the Michigan Rules of Evidence, such as:

• MRE 401–403 (relevance and prejudice)

• MRE 404(b) (other‑acts evidence)

• MRE 702 (expert testimony) A motion in limine is about trial fairness, not police misconduct.

Key Differences Between the Two Motions

Although both motions can keep evidence out of trial, they differ in purpose, timing, and legal basis:

A motion to suppress challenges how evidence was obtained. A motion in limine challenges whether the jury should hear it.

Why Both Motions Matter in Criminal Defense

Strategic use of both motions can dramatically change the outcome of a case. A successful motion to suppress may eliminate key evidence, forcing the prosecution to reduce or dismiss charges. A motion in limine can prevent the jury from hearing damaging, irrelevant, or inflammatory information. Together, they help ensure a fair trial and protect constitutional rights.

Since 1993, Komorn Law, PLLC has aggressively defended clients in Michigan courts, litigating motions to suppress, motions in limine, and complex constitutional issues. If you are facing criminal charges or need strategic pretrial advocacy, contact us at 248‑357‑2550 or visit > KomornLaw.com

FAQs

Q: Can a motion in limine exclude evidence that was illegally obtained?
A: No. That requires a motion to suppress based on constitutional grounds.

Q: Can both motions be filed in the same case?
A: Yes. Many cases involve both constitutional issues and evidentiary concerns.

Q: When is a motion to suppress usually filed?
A: Early in the case, often before the preliminary exam or shortly after discovery.

Q: Does a motion in limine apply only to the prosecution’s evidence?
A: No. Either side may file one to control what the jury hears.

Q: What happens if the prosecutor violates a granted motion in limine?
A: The judge may issue sanctions, strike testimony, or declare a mistrial.

Defininition and Explaination – Motion in Limine

A motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to exclude (or sometimes allow) specific evidence before the jury ever hears it. It’s one of the most important evidentiary tools in both criminal and civil litigation.

• A motion in limine is filed before trial begins, usually at or before the final pretrial conference.

• The phrase comes from Latin meaning “at the threshold” — because the issue is decided before the jury crosses the threshold into the courtroom.

• Its purpose is to prevent the jury from being exposed to prejudicial, irrelevant, or inadmissible evidence that could unfairly influence the verdict.

• The judge rules on the motion outside the presence of the jury.

Why Lawyers Use Motions in Limine

• To exclude damaging evidence that the opposing party might try to introduce.

• To avoid “bell that can’t be unrung” situations, where even a brief mention of improper evidence could taint the jury.

• To streamline the trial by resolving evidentiary disputes in advance.

• To preserve issues for appeal by creating a clear record of what was objected to and why.

What a Motion in Limine Can Address

Common targets include:

• Prior criminal history

• Allegations not supported by admissible evidence

• Hearsay statements

• Speculative or inflammatory claims

• Irrelevant personal information

• Improper expert testimony

• References to plea negotiations or insurance coverage

A motion in limine can also be affirmative, asking the court to allow certain evidence that might otherwise be challenged.

How Courts Handle These Motions

• The judge reviews the motion, any response, and applicable rules of evidence.

• The ruling may be:

  • Granted (evidence excluded)

  • Denied (evidence allowed)

  • Reserved (judge waits to see how the evidence comes up at trial)

• If granted, no one may mention the excluded evidence in front of the jury without first obtaining permission outside the jury’s presence.

Why It Matters

A motion in limine can dramatically shape the trial. Keeping prejudicial or irrelevant information away from the jury protects the defendant’s right to a fair trial and keeps the focus on legally admissible evidence.

If you want, I can turn this into a full website article with headings, FAQs, citations, SEO meta description, and schema — just say the word.

Common Issues Addressed in Motions in Limine

Attorneys use motions in limine to challenge or pre‑approve evidence such as:

• Prior criminal history or bad acts (MRE 404(b))

• Hearsay statements (MRE 801–803)

• Speculative or inflammatory allegations

• Improper expert testimony (MRE 702)

• References to plea negotiations (MRE 410)

• Insurance coverage or settlement discussions

• Irrelevant personal information A motion in limine may also be affirmative, asking the court to allow evidence that may otherwise be challenged.

How Michigan Courts Decide These Motions

Judges typically hear motions in limine at the final pretrial conference or immediately before trial. The court may:

• Grant the motion (evidence excluded)

• Deny the motion (evidence allowed)

• Reserve ruling until the evidence arises at trial If granted, the parties must not reference the excluded evidence in front of the jury without first obtaining permission outside the jury’s presence. Violating a granted motion in limine can result in a mistrial or sanctions.

Impact on Trial Strategy

A well‑crafted motion in limine can dramatically shape the trial. By controlling what the jury hears, attorneys can focus the case on admissible, relevant evidence and prevent the opposing party from injecting improper or prejudicial material. In criminal cases, these motions are often essential to protecting the defendant’s constitutional rights and ensuring a fair trial.

Since 1993, Komorn Law, PLLC has aggressively defended clients in Michigan courts, from district court to the federal level. Our firm has extensive experience litigating evidentiary issues, including motions in limine, suppression motions, and constitutional challenges. If you are facing criminal charges or need strategic pretrial advocacy, contact us at 248‑357‑2550 or visit > KomornLaw.com

Motion in Limine FAQs

Q: What does “motion in limine” literally mean?
A: It means “at the threshold,” referring to decisions made before the trial begins.

Q: When is a motion in limine filed?
A: Typically before trial, often at or before the final pretrial conference.

Q: Is a motion in limine the same as an objection?
A: No. An objection happens during trial; a motion in limine resolves evidentiary issues before trial.

Q: What happens if someone violates a granted motion in limine? A: The judge may issue sanctions, strike testimony, or declare a mistrial depending on the severity.

Q: Can a motion in limine be used to admit evidence?
A: Yes. Parties may file motions seeking pre‑approval of evidence likely to be challenged.

What is a Frank’s Hearing?

A Franks hearing is a critical legal tool used when a defendant claims that police lied, exaggerated, or recklessly disregarded the truth in a search warrant affidavit.

When law enforcement places its hand on the Constitution, the law requires honesty. A Franks hearing tests whether that Hand acted lawfully or whether it crossed the line. In Michigan criminal cases, this hearing can determine whether key evidence stays in the case or is thrown out entirely.

What Triggers a Franks Hearing?

A defendant is entitled to a Franks hearing when they make a substantial preliminary showing that the police officer’s affidavit contained:

• Intentional false statements,
• Reckless disregard for the truth, or
• Material omissions that misled the judge.

If the officer’s hand manipulated facts, omitted critical information, or shaped the affidavit to secure a warrant improperly, the court must examine whether the warrant was valid. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

How a Franks Hearing Works

At the hearing, the defense must show that the officer’s or courts hand inserted falsehoods or withheld facts that were essential to probable cause. The court then removes the false statements or adds the omitted facts and reevaluates the warrant. If probable cause collapses, the warrant falls — and so does the evidence seized under it.

This process ensures that the Hand of government power does not override constitutional protections.

What Counts as a Franks Violation?

A Franks violation occurs when an officer’s hands an intentionally or recklessly and misleads the judge who issued the warrant. Examples include:

• Claiming confidential informant reliability without basis
• Omitting exculpatory facts
• Exaggerating surveillance observations
• Misrepresenting timelines
• Fabricating details to strengthen probable cause

If cases in the hands of law enforcement crosses into deception, the higher court must intervene.

Why Franks Hearings Matter in Michigan Criminal Defense

A successful Franks hearing can result in suppression of all evidence obtained through the defective warrant. Without that evidence, the prosecution’s case may weaken dramatically or collapse entirely. For defendants, this hearing is a powerful safeguard ensuring that the Hand of the state remains accountable to the Constitution.

Since 1993, Komorn Law, PLLC has aggressively defended clients in Michigan courts, from district court to the federal level. Our firm has extensive experience litigating evidentiary issues, including motions in limine, suppression motions, and constitutional challenges. If you feel like you were dealt a bad hand for criminal charges or need strategic pretrial advocacy, contact us at 248‑357‑2550 or visit > KomornLaw.com

FAQs

Q: What is a Franks hearing?
A: A Franks hearing examines whether an officer’s Hand included false or misleading information in a warrant affidavit.

Q: What must a defendant show to get a Franks hearing?
A: They must make a preliminary showing that the officer’s Hand acted intentionally or recklessly in misstating or omitting facts.

Q: What happens if the court finds a Franks violation?
A: The court removes the false statements, corrects omissions, and if probable cause disappears, the evidence is suppressed.

Q: Is every mistake in a warrant affidavit a Franks violation?
A: No. Only intentional or reckless Hand‑driven misrepresentations qualify — not simple negligence.

Q: Can a Franks hearing lead to dismissal of charges?
A: Yes. If the suppressed evidence was central to the case, the prosecution may have no Hand left to proceed.

Brady List

To ensure fair trials, the Supreme Court of the United States established the Brady Doctrine, which obligates prosecutors in every case to investigate, obtain, and disclose all information regarding any individual whose testimony or professional conduct may affect the integrity of judicial proceedings.

The Brady List is the definitive public-facing platform of record for accountability information and potential impeachment disclosures involving Law Enforcement Organizations [LEOrgs], Prosecutors, Judges, and government agents. The platform includes records of officer misconduct, decertification, public complaints, use-of-force reports, do-not-call listings [Giglio letter], and other materials relevant to due process, transparency, and the preservation of justice within the legal system.

This platform is available as-a-service to all Peace Officer Standards & Training [POST] Departments, Prosecutors, State (Regulatory) Bars, Law Enforcement Organizations [LEOrgs], Courts, Judicial Disciplinary Bodies, and Government Agencies.