Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony Pertaining to the Value of DNA Evidence

The State of Ohio’s motion to exclude the testimony of expert Neil Miller. As an expert witness, Miller’s testimony would pertain to the value of DNA evidence. Miller has written a report entitled Convicted By Juries, Exonerated By Science. The State of Ohio argues that Miller’s expertise is limited to rape cases therefore his testimony is not relevant to this homicide case. The State of Ohio also argues that the evidence Miller can provide cannot be either scientific or technical. In addition, the State argues that the rules of evidence require that that the testimony be excluded because there is no fact at issue in the case for which Miller’s testimony will prove insightful for the jury

Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff\u27s Proposed Exhibits (#26, 27, 110)

The State of Ohio seeks to exclude Plaintiff\u27s Exhibits 26, 27, and 110 from trial, which are audiotapes and videotapes. The State argues that the tapes cannot be properly authenticated and that they are inadmissible hearsay. See order ruling on this motio

Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony Pertaining to the Value of DNA Evidence

The State of Ohio’s motion to exclude the testimony of expert Neil Miller. As an expert witness, Miller’s testimony would pertain to the value of DNA evidence. Miller has written a report entitled Convicted By Juries, Exonerated By Science. The State of Ohio argues that Miller’s expertise is limited to rape cases therefore his testimony is not relevant to this homicide case. The State of Ohio also argues that the evidence Miller can provide cannot be either scientific or technical. In addition, the State argues that the rules of evidence require that that the testimony be excluded because there is no fact at issue in the case for which Miller’s testimony will prove insightful for the jury

Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff\u27s Proposed Exhibits (#31, 32, 38...)

The State of Ohio seeks to exclude the Estate\u27s proposed exhibits 31, 32, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 77, 78, 79, 80, 91, 92, 93, 112, and 113. The State asserts that these exhibits are not admissible as hearsay under Ohio Evid. R. 802. See order ruling on this motio

Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony Pertaining to Trial Publicity

The State of Ohio moves to exclude from trial the expert testimony of Keith Sander, which concerns the publicity surrounding the 1954 trial. Sanders is the compiler of a report entitled The Cleveland Press Coverage of the Sheppard Murder Case in Relation to Sensational News Treatment. The State argues that this report is neither scientific nor technical and that the evidence will not help the trier of fact determine any of the facts at issue

Motion in Limine to Exclude Specific Items of Physical Evidence

The State of Ohio moves to exclude the bloodstained wood chip and the bloodstain on the murder room wardrobe door, arguing that these pieces of physical evidence cannot be authenticated and should not be admitted during trial. Specifically, it argues that Cynthia Cooper will not be appearing at trial, leaving the trier of fact deprived of information concerning her involvement in the uncovering of the evidence. See order denying this motio

Motion in Limine to Exclude Specific Items of Physical Evidence

The State of Ohio moves to exclude the bloodstained wood chip and the bloodstain on the murder room wardrobe door, arguing that these pieces of physical evidence cannot be authenticated and should not be admitted during trial. Specifically, it argues that Cynthia Cooper will not be appearing at trial, leaving the trier of fact deprived of information concerning her involvement in the uncovering of the evidence. See order denying this motio

Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff\u27s Proposed Exhibits (#47, 48, 52, 97)

The State of Ohio seeks to exclude Plaintiff\u27s Exhibits 47,48, 52, and 97 from trial, which are letters written by Richard Eberling. The State argues that the letters are not properly authenticated under Ohio Evid.R. 901 and are inadmissible hearsay. See order ruling on this motio

Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff\u27s Proposed Exhibits (#47, 48, 52, 97)

The State of Ohio seeks to exclude Plaintiff\u27s Exhibits 47,48, 52, and 97 from trial, which are letters written by Richard Eberling. The State argues that the letters are not properly authenticated under Ohio Evid.R. 901 and are inadmissible hearsay. See order ruling on this motio

Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony of Emanuel Tanay

Emanuel Tanay was a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Wayne State University who offered an opinion regarding the crime scene investigation: he supported the theory that Richard Eberling was Marilyn\u27s killer. The State argues that the Professor’s methodology is not based on a reliable foundation and therefore does not meet the Daubert standard of admissibility. See order denying this motio