By Kay Ebeling
Church attorneys for the Salesians want the court to exclude “evidence of Fr. Titian Miani’s 2003 arrest,” evidence of conduct by “persons other than Miani, Lorenzoni, and Marguia,” and my favorite in the arena of thought control, Motion in Limine No. 8: “To preclude expressions of personal opinions and references to litigation and/or settlements. . . . ”
Defense attorneys filed at least nine motions in limine Oct. 2nd trying to exclude evidence in the Salesians cases which go to jury trial November 5.
In hearings this morning the Salesians added David Morse from Texas as attorney in the upcoming jury trial. Morse came in to battle plaintiffs for the Salesians in the 2006 San Francisco trials. Today the Court granted leave to allege punitive damages in two of the upcoming cases against the Salesians, and Judgy Haley Fromholz ordered attorneys on both sides to meet and confer on motions to compel documents and answers to interrogatories that the Salesians were trying to beat down.
I went downstairs to see what information the Salesians were trying to cover up this time and again arcscanweb wouldn't open the clergy case documents.
But the titles of the motions in limine say enough
First: “in limine” defined:
“Order regarding the admissibility of evidence whose exclusion is sought esp. on the ground that it is prejudicial"
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Here is the evidence attorneys for the Salesians want excluded: (Filed on October 2)
Motion in Limine No. 1
To preclude evidence of plaintiffs’ sexual abuse by Father Titian “Jim” Miani, Father Larry Lorenzoni, and Brother Ralph Marguia.
A second Motion in limine 1:
To exclude any reference to liability insurance in voir dire and trial.
I CAN’T FIND A NUMBER 2, THINK THAT SECONE NUMBER ONE WAS MIS-NUMBERED?
Motion in Limine No. 3