Opinion ID: 4554030
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Motion-in-Limine Order

Text: In preparation for trial, the defendants requested any potentially exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), including evidence that could negate the government’s scienter theory. Notably, to combat the government’s allegation that the defendants had lied about fearing being surrounded by snipers, the defendants sought materials showing the presence of armed officers in tactical gear taking positions around the Bundy Ranch. The defense UNITED STATES V. BUNDY 11 also wanted evidence to support their claim that the impoundment operation was over-militarized. In October of 2017, shortly before trial began, the government obtained a favorable ruling on a motion in limine, which limited the defense’s ability to introduce evidence regarding the affirmative defense of self-defense against government actors. The district court concluded that the affirmative defense was not available to the defendants because they knew the “official status” of the federal officers and there was no evidence that the officers used excessive force. However, the district court left open the possibility that the defendants could present evidence supporting the affirmative defense with “an offer of proof outside the presence of the jury that the defense should apply.” In the same order, the court denied the government’s request to preclude evidence regarding the defendants’ state of mind. The government cited this order to justify several of its decisions to withhold evidence.