Are the walls closing in? Review of Idaho Four Motions in Limine - Part 1
In preparation for Wednesday's hearing, we're looking at what's been filed and what it means, starting with the State's motions.
Since February, we’ve had a flood of new filings in the case of Bryan Kohberger. It took a while to catch up on all of them; not all of them are significant, but several of them have provided new insights into the case that may be critical - some that seem favorable to Bryan, and some that seem damning.
Motions in limine are pretrial motions that typically deal with preliminary evidentiary rulings and other matters relating to the conduct of the trial. Their purpose is to give the court advance notice of evidence the parties believe will not be admissible at trial so the other party doesn’t elicit it in front of the jury before it can be objected to. Not all motions in limine are decided pretrial - in many cases, courts will wait to see how the evidence develops at trial before determining whether the evidence satisfies the rules for admission.
Motions in limine are one of my favorite parts of a trial to watch because it’s where you start to see how the parties plan to present their own cases and fight the other side’s. Particularly in a case like this one, where much of the evidence has been kept tightly under wraps for years, these motions are probably our best opportunity to learn about how the State plans to prove Bryan committed these murders until trial starts later this summer.
In this piece and the next one, I’ll be going through each of the motions in limine, highlighting the parts that stand out to me, and offering a prediction on how I expect the court to rule.
Intent to use 404(b) evidence
“404(b)” evidence refers generally to prior bad acts or misconduct by a party or witness. Under the rule, it unequivocally cannot be offered to show that because the person did something bad before, they probably also did something bad this time. However, it can be admitted to show other things besides a bad character or a propensity for criminal conduct, such as motive, opportunity, identity, lack of mistake, and more. Idaho’s rule requires that the State give notice of anticipated 404(b) evidence reasonably in advance of trial
The State has given notice that it intends to introduce evidence of Bryan’s traffic stop on August 21, 2022 by the Latah County Sheriff’s Office. They want to use it to establish identity - specifically, Bryan’s personal information provided during the stop and the information about the vehicle he was driving.
The defense argues that 404(b) evidence is only admissible to establish identity when the prior bad act is so much like the charged conduct that it tends to establish a modus operandi of criminal activity. In other words, the prior act and the charged crime are so distinctive and so similar that it’s reasonable to assume the same person committed both acts.
My thoughts: While the defense is generally correct on the law governing the identity exception, the State’s proposed use is not improper. We know that the investigators claim that this stop furnished information that they used to develop the case against Bryan, such as the fact that his car was registered in Pennsylvania (which does not require a front license plate) and his phone number, for which they obtained cell site location data to track his whereabouts around the time of the killings. The bases for admitting prior bad acts listed in rule 404(b) are not exclusive, so while the State’s use of “identity” to describe what they want to use the evidence for is imprecise and probably incorrect, their proposed uses of it to establish a connection between Bryan, his phone number, and his car as well as to show the basis for the information investigators relied on are valid.
Besides this specific issue, however, it is noticeable that this traffic stop is the only “prior bad act” the State intends to elicit at trial. Various news reports have asserted multiple other “bad acts” by Bryan, such as getting fired from his teaching assistant job at WSU, acting creepy towards a female bartender in Pennsylvania and girls at a pool party in Moscow, as well as a prior addiction to drugs, all of which have been suggested may tend to establish a misogynistic or retaliatory motive for the killings. Whether because it could not confirm these reports or simply as a matter of strategy, it appears the State will not be advancing a “murderous incel” theory at trial to explain why it believes Bryan murdered Kaylee, Maddie, Xana, and Ethan. However, this does not preclude the State from presenting this type of evidence in the penalty phase of the trial, so long as it has witnesses to substantiate it.
Prediction: Granted.
Exclude Neuropsychiatric and Psychiatric evidence
The State contends, based on expert disclosures from the defense, that the defense intends to elicit evidence that Bryan suffers from certain disorders, specifically autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and developmental coordination disorder (DCD). The State argues that mental health defenses are not allowed under Idaho law except for the limited purpose of establishing the defendant’s state of mind. It argues that it does not intend to present evidence of odd behaviors by Bryan in its case-in-chief, that his DCD doesn’t affect him much in adulthood, and that there is no case law supporting the use of expert testimony to explain the defendant’s in-court demeanor - to the contrary, Idaho law requires the jury to rely only on evidence formally presented and not extraneous considerations.
The defense argues that Bryan’s conditions are necessary to explain his physical presentation in the courtroom, to rebut arguments that certain behaviors like driving frequently at night and frequently wearing gloves are indicative of guilt, and to show that he could not have committed the crimes within the narrow window of time the State’s theory allows. They are not attempting to show that he was unable to know right from wrong, and so are not violating Idaho’s prohibition against mental health defenses.
My thoughts: Bryan’s right to present a defense in a capital case is likely to carry the day here. If, as the defense suggests, the State really does intend to elicit evidence that on the night of his arrest, Bryan was awake, wearing gloves and putting trash in baggies as proof of consciousness of guilt (i.e., implying that he was trying to prevent his genetic material from being discovered in the trash), then the defense has every right to present evidence that this type of behavior is, in fact, normal for him. Likewise, his claim to have driven to Wawawai Park on the night of the murders sounds a lot more credible if it’s typical behavior for him, even if it seems weird for someone else. The medical cause of those behaviors is important information for the jury to assess their veracity and sincerity.
The proposition to use the diagnoses to explain Bryan’s in-court demeanor is a bit more problematic. On the one hand, how the defendant presents in court isn’t evidence of guilt or innocence; it is, at best, a fact that might only tend to support the kind of character or propensity inference that rule 404 prohibits. On the other hand, it’s hard to deny the reality that jurors are humans and are likely to scrutinize the defendant closely for clues about the kind of person he is. I think the best way for the defense to counter the State’s argument that his in-court behavior isn’t relevant is to accept that proposition and amplify it - the whole reason for presenting Bryan’s conditions is to reinforce why the jury should not rely on Bryan’s appearance to try to decide guilt or innocence.
Prediction: Denied except possibly as to Bryan’s in-court demeanor.
Exclude Evidence of Alternative Perpetrators
The State does not want Bryan accusing somebody else of committing the murders. It argues that investigators received thousands of tips, all of which were unsubstantiated, so the defense should have to show a specific connection with the crime to accuse an alternative perpetrator.
The defense argues that they should be allowed to make an offer of proof and that the case is full of alternative perpetrators.
My thoughts: Like many (if not most) states, Idaho limits a defendant’s ability to point the finger at another person as the real perpetrator. However, Idaho’s standard is much more lenient than, for example, the impossible “nexus” standard that was applied to Richard Allen in Judge Gull’s court; it is grounded simply in principles of relevance, so the evidence must only tend to show something more than that another person could have committed the crime. This does not seem like a terribly difficult hurdle to clear if the defense can show somebody else had motive and opportunity to commit the murders.
Of course, since Bryan maintains his innocence, his defense necessarily implies that somebody else committed the crime and he will not be prohibited from either making that argument or from contending that failures in the police investigation - failure to investigate unknown male blood samples from the crime scene, for example - kept police from apprehending the right person. What’s at issue with this motion is simply whether the defense will be able to specifically name who they think the real killer or killers is or are.
The defense’s reference to the sealed November 2024 motion regarding genetic information seems a bit surprising and potentially alarming. We know from the court’s February 19, 2025 order denying the motion that this probably relates to the four brothers of interest identified as a “low match” through the investigative genetic genealogy investigation. If that’s what this reference alludes to, it is an enormous reach to proffer these individuals as possible alternative suspects and suggests either desperation or lack of discrimination by the defense in sorting through what it might be possible to argue and what it is wise and prudent to argue.
Prediction: Reserved pending proffer from the defense.
Preclude Alibi
The State wants an order prohibiting anybody but Bryan from testifying at trial that Bryan was somewhere else at the time of the murders. It argues that Bryan has not complied with the statutory requirements to present an alibi defense and that his phone will not establish an alibi because it was turned off during the time of the offense.
The defense argues that it has disclosed partial corroboration of Bryan’s claimed alibi through the testimony of Sy Ray, the defense’s cell site location expert. However, the defense says their if their disclosure is incomplete, it’s because the State has not disclosed the analysis related to the final CAST report or the Timing Advance data for Bryan’s phone.
My thoughts: This motion has been foreseeable since the end of May, 2023, when the State filed its demand that Bryan provide any alibi evidence he intended to proffer at trial. Idaho law requires specific disclosures to be made by the defense if an alibi defense will be offered at trial. From the very beginning, the defense has contended that they will likely rely on the State’s own evidence to show Bryan’s whereabouts, which he claims is in the area of Wawawai Park. Judge Judge previously observed that this isn’t a “true” alibi, and that’s a fair observation - his phone apparently can’t corroborate his location at the time period of the crime, and there are no other witnesses that say where he was.
I did notice the State’s unqualified statement that Bryan’s phone was turned off at the time of the crimes, because that’s a much stronger position than Det. Payne previously took in the probable cause affidavit - he stated that the phone was either turned off, or in airplane mode, or in an area without cell service. It makes me wonder if the State has new evidence, such as the power log from Bryan’s phone, substantiating this, or is just advocating the interpretation of the evidence it intends to argue at trial.
Prediction: Granted to the extent that nobody but Bryan can testify about his whereabouts at the time of the murders; but Sy Ray testimony based on available location data will be allowed.
Allow demonstrative exhibit.
The State wants to present a not-to-scale 3D model of the King Road house that is still being constructed by the FBI. It argues that a demonstrative exhibit need not be precisely accurate, as in the case of a hand-drawn sketch.
The defense argues that the State has waited too long to produce the model because the defense would need to have it evaluated to see if it gives a misleading impression of the circumstances in the home, such as false sight lines. An affidavit from Matthew Noedel, a forensic crime scene reconstructionist contends that the jury could place significance on something that isn’t accurate if the model isn’t done correctly and it would also not contain furniture or fixtures that could influence the appearance of spatial relationships.
My thoughts: Boy, I have a few. Why did the State even bother taking 3D scans of the house if they did not intend to create a scaled reproduction? Why did the State only initially scan the two rooms where the victims were found and wait until a year after the murders to scan the entire house? Why are we going to the trouble of building an entire 3D model and not just making it to scale while we’re at it? Why did the State decide to produce it so late in the day that it wasn’t finished until long after its discovery deadline had passed?
The State is generally correct that demonstratives don’t have to be entirely accurate, but the potential difference between a hand-drawn sketch and a 3D model is that the sketch doesn’t present itself as more accurate than it is. The risk here is that even with disclaimers that it isn’t completely accurate, jurors are likely to assume it is more reliable than it is. If all you’re trying to do is establish a general layout and show how spaces relate to each other and to photo evidence from the scene, you can just create a floorplan that achieves this. Because it takes a lot of effort to produce a model, that tends to suggest to the jury that care was taken to make it, when in actuality, a less labor-intensive floorplan might be more accurate.
But, courts often tend to think these kinds of issues can be mitigated as long as the jury is clearly informed of the limitations of the demonstrative. Demonstrative exhibits generally don’t go into the jury room either, so the amount of mischief the jurors can get up to with the model is more limited. Ultimately, if there are criticisms of the exhibit, that’s for the defense to establish on cross-examination or with its own expert.
Prediction: Granted.
Limit testimony about Investigative Genetic Genealogy
The State does not want the defense to be able to tell the jury about the shenanigans the FBI got up to with the IGG process, where they searched databases they weren’t allowed into and made an arrest without a confirmatory DNA sample from Brian as the DOJ policy requires. Although the State has always intended to minimize the use of IGG at trial by referring to it only as a “tip” that gave them Bryan’s name, it will not commit to not mentioning IGG at all, suggesting that it may be necessary to refer to it to complete the story of the investigation.
The defense has filed a similar motion and most of the briefing on this issue has taken place on the defense motion, so I will defer further discussion of this until Part 2.
Preclude improper death penalty comments
Because the defense has previously made strong statements to the judge characterizing the decision to seek the death penalty as “attempting to kill” Bryan, the State wants an order preventing the defense from making this or similar statements in front of the jury. The defense says that the jury will be aware that the death penalty is on the table and proposes to use language from the statutes and the jury instructions when the issue comes up.
My thoughts: This motion seems generally unnecessary to me. There is a world of difference between the kinds of things lawyers say to a judge and the kinds of things they say to a jury, and most practitioners know the difference. It seems to me to reflect a lack of trust that the parties will behave with professionalism, and I have seen nothing in the public hearings that warrants such a suspicion. Whenever I see a motion like this that preemptively anticipates defense misconduct, I always wonder if it’s rooted in projection - would the State do this if it could get away with it, and is that why it’s on the State’s mind that the defense might?
I did look up the statute and jury instruction cited and they refer blandly to “death” and “the death penalty,” although the jury instruction includes interesting language that it should consider whether death would be unjust.
This motion is a nothing-burger because the defense doesn’t plan to say the things the prosecution is concerned about so they don’t really oppose the request.
Prediction: Granted.
Clarify which family members have a right to be in the courtroom
Like many states with victims’ rights established constitutionally or by statute, Idaho law permits the immediate family members of homicide victims to attend all proceedings in the case. But, the law doesn’t define who an “immediate family member” is, so the State wants it to include some grandparents and step-relations of the victims and submitted a list of 19 family members it believes have the right to attend. As to Bryan’s family, however, the State argues they have no right to be present and, because they are on the State’s witness list, they should be excluded from the courtroom until they testify.
The defense takes no issue with the 19 people the State wants in the courtroom, but asks that the court impose a decorum order preventing clothing that communicates a message, such as a t-shirt worn by one family member to a pretrial hearing saying “Shots Fired” in reference to Idaho recently approving the use of a firing squad as an execution method. The defense also advises that Bryan’s parents and 2 sisters wish to attend the trial.
My thoughts: T-shirts, buttons, and similar attire that conveys a message is often banned from courtrooms under the reasoning that it could encourage the jury to rely on emotion rather than evidence and that it detracts from the neutral atmosphere of the courtroom. But, it’s a matter of trial court discretion and there is no hard and fast rule that demonstrative spectator behavior necessarily deprives the defendant of a fair trial - this US Supreme Court case, Carey v. Musladin, describes different standards states have applied (Idaho is not mentioned). In this case, I’d expect the “Shots Fired” t-shirt to be out of bounds because it’s emphasizing the potential penalty when the jury isn’t supposed to be considering that during the guilt phase. But I’d also expect the judge to be generally accommodating to the victims’ families and adopt a compromise ruling that has a low risk of creating an argument for unfair influence on the jury, something along the lines of allowing them to bring in a photo of their loved one for their own comfort but not to display it in the courtroom.
Also, what an asshole move by the State to want to exclude the family members of the man they want to put to death. The family has not done anything wrong and there is no reason to think they would be disruptive or alter their limited testimony in response to trial evidence. Witness exclusion is discretionary in Idaho and I’d expect the judge to exercise his discretion to allow Bryan’s family to remain in the courtroom, given their limited knowledge of the substantive facts and the gravity of what’s at stake.
Prediction: All families allowed to attend, limited decorum order entered.
Exclude reference to failure to obtain AT&T Timing Advance Records for Bryan’s phone
This motion is a doozy. The State argues that AT&T’s Global Legal Demand Center (GLDC) did not produce timing advance records until May 2023, and Bryan’s records were obtained in December 2022. After being confronted with the fact that investigators obtained timing advance data from before May 2023 and obtained a warrant specifically requesting it before May 2023, the State then revised its account to say that before June 2023, carriers only retained timing advance data for 7 days and did not routinely provide it. It supports its position with an affidavit from a member of AT&T GLDC who states that it did not provide timing advance reports for Bryan’s phone because they were not available for November 13, 2022 by the time the warrant was issued on December 23, 2022.
The defense contends that the FBI had access to timing advance records before 2023 and in fact obtained some before then in this case for different individuals and cell towers. The language used in the warrant for Bryan’s data was the same language used in other requests that successfully obtained timing advance data and an e-mail from FBI Special Agent Nicholas Ballance also indicates that timing advance data was available. In support of their arguments, the defense submitted a scathing affidavit from Sy Ray, who does not hold back in accusing the prosecution of misconduct in misleading the court. He states how and from whom the FBI could acquire timing advance records outside of the GLDC process and that the FBI’s own work product shows it not only obtained timing advance data but used and referenced it regularly.
My thoughts: As pointed out by the defense, timing advance data can be enormously helpful in calculating a more precise phone location. It measures the time it takes for signals to pass between the phone and the tower; because those signals move at a constant rate (the speed of light), the time can help pinpoint exactly how far a phone was from a tower rather than simply whether it was within the tower’s range. That type of information would be extremely helpful in this case, where the State is relying on tower connections to try to show trips to Moscow at different points, because the ranges of towers in this area can be many miles and the timing data would help narrow down exactly where Bryan was when his phone connected. If the investigators could have gotten it, it does seem pretty weird that they didn’t.
The State’s changing story is very problematic and I personally find Sy Ray’s affidavit to be very compelling. As he testified just a couple weeks ago in the Monica Sementelli trial in California (where he testified for the People), the overwhelming majority of his work - at least 99% - is done for the prosecution, not the defense. Because prosecutors are his bread and butter and because accusing them of misconduct, whether justified or not, tends to make them angry, I would not expect him to throw around such accusations casually.
That said, there is a lot of ambiguity and wiggle room around the timing advance data because neither side is being extremely precise about exactly which timing data they are referring to at which point. Although the defense claims that Brett Payne testified he had seen Bryan’s timing advance data, I went back and rewatched that testimony I don’t believe that claim is supported - Det. Payne says that he doesn’t remember if he had seen it and he would have to see what it was to remember. Furthermore, Sy Ray’s affidavit doesn’t establish whether the 7-day retention period for these records also applied to the non-GLDC process he refers to, so it’s not clear whether the FBI could have gotten the records in December 2022 even if they used the alternative method he identifies.
In general, it’s perfectly proper for a defendant to criticize the State’s investigative decisions and the State can explain why they did what they did. Asking that the defense not even mention this issue seems to me to be preventing the defense from fully confronting one of the most important pieces of evidence the State is offering against him. I think the State would be on much firmer ground if it were asking to deny a defense request for a missing evidence instruction, because the record we have doesn’t seem to establish definitively either that the investigators ever had Bryan’s timing advance data or that they certainly could have obtained November 2022 data in response to the December 2022 warrant. But there doesn’t seem to me to be anything improper about the defense arguing that critical data could have been obtained and either wasn’t or was hidden from the defense, and the State can make its case to the jury that it never received the records. The jury can decide what happened and how important they think it is.
Prediction: Denied.
Admit text messages and conversations between the surviving roommates
The State contends that text messages between D.M. and B.F. during the early morning hours when the State alleges the murders were committed are admissible under various exceptions to the hearsay rule. The State also argues that admitting these messages would not violate the Confrontation Clause because both D.M. and B.F. will testify at trial and can be cross-examined about them. It intends to introduce only a few messages after 4:37 a.m.
The defense argues that the text messages cover a time frame between 2:10 a.m. and 1:04 p.m. on November 13, 2022 and that based on the phone activity during this time period, the hearsay exceptions claimed by the State do not apply. The defense also submits an affidavit from Senior Digital Forensics Examiner Josiah Roloff, who testifies that there are periods of activity on the phones on November 13, 2022 that would require user interaction.
My thoughts: This motion is legally pretty technical and not all that interesting, but the new facts it has revealed is fascinating. The text messages show D.M. and B.F. discussing activity occurring in the home at the suspected time of the murders, D.M. expressing fear, B.F. waking up early and trying to call her parents, and D.M. spending hours on social media, all before finally calling 911 at nearly noon. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the roommates because I tend to think it’s normal for people to comfort themselves in fearful situations by assuming they are overreacting, and while not ideal, it also doesn’t strike me as super nefarious or the crime of the century or anything if college kids want to get their drugs or other embarrassing items out of the house before calling the police. Still, the contrast between the fear and confusion around 4:30 a.m. and the unconcerned behavior later - particularly D.M.’s social media use but also the lack of checking in on the other roommates after being concerned that they were not answering their phones the night before - is a discrepancy the jury is going to want to be explained.
On the hearsay side of things, I expect the court to find that the texts the State wants to use fit within the present sense impression or excited utterance exceptions to the hearsay rule. The texts from around 4:30 are pretty clearly describing what D.M. is observing in close to real time, and the records they want to use from later in the morning are not offered for the truth of their contents but just to show the sequence of events. The defense may want more of the texts admitted under the rule of completeness to put them in context, and they are also highly likely to cross-examine both roommates on their activities after they woke up.
Prediction: Granted.
Admit self-authenticating records
The State wants to admit a large volume of business records and public records without having to call a witness to testify to the foundational facts that establish them as business and public records. Idaho law allows this to be done with a certification from the custodian of those records.
The defense counters that the State has not actually provided certifications for most of the items at issue. Also, the categories of records identified may cover a large number of items and the State has not identified which ones they intend to use at trial.
My thoughts: Again, a fairly boring motion from a legal standpoint, but a very interesting one factually. The State’s list of records sought to be admitted under this motion can be expected to detail the bulk of the documentary evidence that will tie Bryan to the crime … and it looks like quite a thin gruel - shopping records from various clothing and sporting goods stores (most of which the State withdrew after the defense responded, with the exception of a record that Bryan purchased a balaclava from a Dick’s Sporting Goods in January 2022), banking and other financial records, lots of surveillance footage, a paper Bryan wrote about crime scenes as part of his coursework at DeSales University, and Amazon purchase records for Bryan as well as “click data.” Notably missing: Social media activity, records of transactions by Bryan in Moscow, and records showing Bryan and any of the victims in the same place at the same time before the murders.
Not included in these documents would be things like the extraction reports from his devices, the lab reports from analysis of his car and other evidence obtained from him, the CAST report detailing the FBI’s claims as to his whereabouts on the night of the murders, autopsy reports, and similar records prepared as part of the investigation of the case. Thus, while there’s always the possibility that there is more that the investigation uncovered, so far nothing jumps out as undermining the defense’s claim from 2023 that investigators found no link between Bryan and any of the victims.
It also appears from the State’s intention to offer an academic paper Bryan wrote and a balaclava purchase from ten months before the murders that we are to infer Bryan intended to commit this crime or one like it for a significant length of time. Given the apparent absence of planning or preparation in relation to these specific victims, I do wonder if the State will offer other evidence of planning and preparation from, for example, Bryan’s internet search history.
On the procedural side of things, I’m a bit surprised the State doesn’t have its case in better order as far as making sure it has the certifications it needs to present the evidence it wants to present. On the other hand, the fact that the State seems a bit underprepared here has encouraged it to revise its proffer, which indicates some editing of the case to eliminate extraneous fluff and that is usually not a bad thing.
Prediction: Granted as to anything with a certification.
Admit 911 call and transcript
The State argues that the 911 call and the transcript prepared of what is said on it fit within the present sense impression or excited utterance exceptions to the hearsay rule, or alternatively the things said are not offered for their truth. According to the State, the call was made when D.M. and B.F. realized their roommates were not waking up or responding after the disturbing events they saw and heard the night before, while under the stress of that realization.
The defense contends that statements by E.A. don’t fall within an exception and are also testimonial hearsay under the Confrontation Clause because they are reporting what D.M. or B.F. said about events several hours earlier. They also contend the roommates were not under the stress of the previous night’s events because they were on social media that morning, the 911 call was made 8 hours after the texts about being scared, and the call was only reporting that a roommate had passed out from drinking and was not waking up.
My thoughts: 911 calls are routinely admitted as present sense impressions or excited utterances, and they often overcome Confrontation Clause objections if the call is for assistance with an ongoing situation rather than simply to report past events. The State is likely to be assisted in this regard by the fact that the operator kept trying to redirect the conversation back to what was happening at that time, not the night before. Additionally, if all four of the 911 callers testify at trial, they can be cross-examined so there would be no confrontation problem.
I think the State makes a good argument that the “excitement” that precipitated the 911 call was the discovery that the roommates were not waking up or responding to their phones, not necessarily the events from 4:30 in the morning - although there is no fixed time frame after which someone is considered to no longer be under the stress of the startling event, as it depends entirely on the circumstances. I also think it’s a fair argument that the statements are not necessarily offered for their truth, but simply to show what D.M. and B.F.’s state of mind was at the time and their motivations for calling for help.
On the factual side of things, again, this 911 call leaves me with more questions I didn’t know I had before I heard it. It seems pretty clear that nobody saw any of the murdered roommates before the 911 call was made, given both what they reported and how they reacted when they eventually went to look while on the phone. Why not? It seems very peculiar to call 911 before going to, say, knock on the door to try to rouse them, at which point Xana’s body would have been discovered. How did they know that Xana was unresponsive but did not know she was deceased? Again, I’m willing to give everyone involved in this phone call a lot of benefit of the doubt because I’m aware that stress can dramatically affect your perception and processing of reality, but these are questions that everyone is going to need to be prepared to answer.
Prediction: Granted.
Coming shortly in Part 2, I’ll review the defense motions in limine.