Filed: Sep. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: and Delgado-Colón, * District Judge.Robert E. Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney, with, whom Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, was on brief, for, appellant., Per Curiam.elects, revisit the in limine ruling during the trial.United States v. Marino, 200 F.3d 6, 11 (1st Cir.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 06-2363
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellant,
v.
HARRY GUZMAN,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lipez, Circuit Judge,
Selya, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Delgado-Colón,* District Judge.
Robert E. Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney, with
whom Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, was on brief, for
appellant.
Judith H. Mizner, Federal Defender Office, with whom David A.
Ruhnke and Ruhnke & Barrett were on brief, for appellee.
September 27, 2007
*
Of the District of Puerto Rico, sitting by designation.
Per Curiam. The district court's allowance of the
defendant's motion in limine was not an abuse of discretion and, a
fortiori, the court's denial of the ensuing motion for
reconsideration was also within its discretion. Consequently, we
affirm the rulings from which the government has appealed. The
district court may, if circumstances warrant and if the court so
elects, revisit the in limine ruling during the trial. See, e.g.,
United States v. Marino, 200 F.3d 6, 11 (1st Cir. 1999) (explaining
that "rulings on motions in limine normally are considered
provisional, in the sense that the trial court may revisit its
pretrial evidentiary rulings at retrial when an evidentiary proffer
may be more accurately assessed in the context of . . . other
evidence"). In all events, we need go no further.
Affirmed.
-2-
