Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de138> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 8 of
8
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de138 RegisterActionDate "2019-01-28" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de138 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on January 28, 2019. As stated in the Court's 101 Order on the motions in limine, in limine rulings are always subject to change in the Court's discretion. See United States v. Connelly, 874 F.2d 412, 416 (7th Cir. 1989) (citing Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984)). It is pursuant to this discretion that the Court rules on DC748D8 111 renewed motion to reconsider. The Court acknowledges Jones's frustration with DC748D8 delay in raising these issues. However, the Court is ultimately concerned that the case be tried on the merits with admissible evidence. The Court finds that DC748D8 has made a preliminary showing that items nine and twelve in Jones's 85 motion in limine are admissible pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Based on what is before the Court, it appears there exists a "propensity-free chain of reasoning" to support introducing evidence of these statements to show motive or intent. See United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845, 856 (7th Cir. 2014). That said, it remains somewhat unclear as to what the evidence actually is--i.e., how DC748D8 proposes to introduce the evidence. Therefore, if she wishes to introduce this evidence, she must first make an offer of proof outside the jury's presence. As to item ten in Jones's 85 motion in limine, the comparator evidence, the Court finds DC748D8 still has not met her burden. Finally, as to item twenty-five, the Court finds that no ruling is necessary as DC748D8 indicates she does not object. 111 at 6. For the reasons stated, the 111 motion to reconsider the Court's 101 in limine ruling is GRANTED as to items nine and twelve, DENIED as to item ten, and MOOT as to item twenty-five. In Jones's 112 response, he indicates that granting the 111 motion would necessitate a continuance. See 112 at 10. The Court understands his concern. To the extent Jones needs more time, he should file a request no later than today at 2:30 p.m. (KML, ilcd) (Entered: 01/28/2019)" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de138 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de138 OntologyLabel order @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de138 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de102 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de138 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de122 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de138 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de134 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de138 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de137 @default.