United States District Court, D. Nevada
M Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge
before the Court is the Motion in Limine (“MIL”),
(ECF No. 1390), filed by the Government to preclude reference
or evidence regarding certain statements and subject matter.
Defendants O. Scott Drexler (“Drexler”), Eric J.
Parker, and Steven A. Stewart (collectively
“Defendants”) filed a joint Response, (ECF No.
1406). Motions for Joinder were filed by Defendants Richard
Lovelien, (ECF No. 1408), and Gregory Burleson, (ECF No.
1447). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS in
part and DENIES in part the Government's Motion.
general, “[t]he court must decide any preliminary
question about whether . . . evidence is admissible.”
Fed.R.Evid. 104(a). In order to satisfy the burden of proof
for Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a), a party must show that
the requirements for admissibility are met by a preponderance
of the evidence. See Bourjaily v. United States, 483
U.S. 171, 175-76 (1987) (“We have traditionally
required that these matters [regarding admissibility
determinations that hinge on preliminary factual questions]
be established by a preponderance of proof.”).
the [Federal Rules of Evidence] do not explicitly authorize
in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the
district court's inherent authority to manage the course
of trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S.
38, 41 n.4 (1984) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 103(c)). In limine
rulings “are not binding on the trial judge, and the
judge may always change his mind during the course of a
trial.” Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753,
758 n.3 (2000); see also Luce, 469 U.S. at 41
(noting that in limine rulings are always “subject to
change, ” especially if the evidence unfolds in an
Government seeks to preclude the following categories of
• References to the occupation of the Malheur National
Wildlife Refuge, the subsequent trial, United States v.
Ammon Bundy et al, or the result in that trial.
• References to supposed mistreatment of cattle during
the impoundment operation or agency, or officer, misconduct
in this or other impoundment operations or investigations.
• Arguments or opinions that the federal government, its
officers and agents or its agencies are improperly and
excessively armed, use military tactics, act outside their
authority or have engaged in the use of excessive force in
other venues or at other times.
• Hearsay statements or opinions regarding the BLM, the
impoundment operation, or the events of April 12, including
opinions and statements of elected or appointed government
officials (such as Nevada Governor Sandoval, U.S. Senators
Orrin Hatch, Harry Reid, U.S. Congressman-Elect Ruben Kikuen,
Nevada Assemblywoman Michelle Fiore).
• Legal arguments or opinions that the federal
government does not, or should not, own public lands, that
the federal government does not, or should not own the Gold
Butte range, or that Gold Butte Range has now been designated
a National Monument by the President of the United States.
• Legal arguments or opinions that law enforcement
officers within the Department of Interior are not
constitutional, that “natural law” or other
authority permits the use of force against law enforcement
officers in defense of property or individual rights, or that
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada is
(MIL 3:7-4:7, ECF No. 1390). In their briefing, the parties
condense these statements into four categories: (1)
references to the Oregon case; (2) perceived government
misconduct; (3) ...