Filter by: FEDERAL DISTRICT
Filter by Price
Filter by: FILE TYPE
MOTION FOR NOTICE PURSUANT TO C.R.E. 404(B) [DEF – 4]
Defendant’s request the Court order the prosecution to give notice of intent to admit evidence pursuant to C.R.E. 404(b).
MOTION FOR NOTICE OF 404(b) EVIDENCE [11]
Counsel moves for advance notice of any 404(b) evidence, and objects to the introduction of any such evidence at trial and requests a hearing
MOTION FOR NON-TESTIMONIAL IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
MOTION FOR NON-TESTIMONIAL IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
Defendants’ Trial Brief – Personal Injury
A trial brief sets forth the facts, evidence, and legal arguments the party intends to present at trial. A trial brief includes issue, which identify the issue raised by the facts of the client’s case. Rule , which identify the law(s) that controls the issue(s). Analysis, which explains how the rule of law apply to the issue(s). Conclusion, which is a summary of the legal analysis.
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Admit into Evidence a Copy of the Notebook Written, Kept and Maintained by Shooter
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE A COPY OF THE NOTEBOOK WRITTEN, KEPT AND MAINTAINED BY SHOOTER
Defendants’ Combined Motions in Limine
Defendants motion to exclude from trial testimony and evidence of (1) expiration of the statute of limitations against; (2) Defendants’ budget, profit, and bonus policies; (3) irrelevant previous crimes; (4) Defendants’ firearm policy; (5) subsequent remedial measures; (6) Defendants’ alleged failure to produce evidence; (7) Plaintiffs’ injuries; (8) insurance coverage; and (9) placing the jury into the Plaintiffs’ position.
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Prior Claims and Board Matters
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Prior Claims and Board Matters
Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Prior Claims and Board Matters
Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Prior Claims and Board Matters
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CLAIMS AND BOARD MATTERS
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CLAIMS AND BOARD MATTERS
Defendant’s Motion in Limine Regarding Evidence of Other and Subsequent Acts
Defendant’s Motion in Limine Regarding Evidence of Other and Subsequent Acts
Motion Requesting Notice of Prosecution’s Intent to Introduce Alleged Similar Evidence
A sample Motion requesting notice of prosecution’s intent to introduce alleged similar transaction evidence. Well written request for the Court to order the prosecution to specify any instances of alleged prior evidence.
Notice of Objection for Notice of any Evidence of Prior Crimes that the Prosecution Intends to Introduce
Sample of a notice of objection for the prosecution to introduce the defendants previous crimes, wrongs, or acts at trial. Well written notice of objection for the prosecution.
Motion to Suppress Defendants Statement during Custodial Interrogation
Sample to suppress Defendant’s statements while in custody without proper Miranda advisement. Well written motion to exclude evidence from an unlawful interrogation
A Colorado Supreme Court order dealing with the exclusionary rule and driver license DMV
The Department of Revenue, through the Division of Motor Vehicles, revoked a driver’s license, following a hearing officer’s determination that the driver had driven a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content in excess of the statutory maximum. The district court reversed, holding that the initial stop of the driver’s vehicle was not supported by reasonable suspicion. The court of appeals reversed the district court and held that the legality of the initial contact between the police and the driver was not relevant in the civil administrative proceeding to revoke the driver’s license. The court also held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to suppress evidence of the driver’s BAC. The supreme court holds that, under section 42-2-126, C.R.S. (2011), “probable cause” in the context of the driver’s license revocation statute, as it existed at the time of the hearing in this case, refers to the quantum and quality of evidence necessary for a law enforcement officer to issue a notice of driver’s license revocation, not whether the officer’s initial contact with the driver was lawful. The supreme court further holds that the exclusionary rule did not apply to suppress evidence of the driver’s BAC in the driver’s license revocation proceeding. Accordingly, the supreme court affirms the judgment of the court of appeals.
Motion for 404B Notice
the motion requests that the Court Order the prosecution to provide notice in advance of trial that conforms to the standards set forth in People v. Spoto. Further, if the prosecution seeks to introduce such evidence, the Defendant moves that a hearing on the admissibility of such evidence be held sufficiently in advance of trial in order to afford counsel adequate time to confront the proffered evidence.