United States v. Larkin, 2:12-cr-00319

Defendant Maria Larkin is charged by second superseding indictment with one count of tax evasion (willful attempt to evade payment of trust fund recovery penalties). Trial was set for March 13, 2017.
The indictment alleges concealment of assets and financial manipulations (structured currency transactions under $10,000, nominee purchases, heavy cash dealings, use of nominees for businesses and real estate, and providing false information to the IRS).
Larkin filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude various government exhibits as irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, testimonial, cumulative, and hearsay.
The government responded it would limit certain exhibits to the years 2009–2011 and would remove specified documents from other exhibits, narrowing the contested evidence.
In light of the government’s concessions, the court denied Larkin’s motion in limine but reserved ruling on specific objections, stating it will address admissibility as exhibits are offered at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Relevance of documents and time period	Government will limit certain exhibits to 2009–2011 to show conduct during charged period	Exhibits are irrelevant outside charged period and should be excluded	Denied; government concessions narrow scope, court will rule at trial on offered exhibits
Hearsay / testimonial statements	Government did not press broad testimonial hearsay — will remove specified documents	Exhibits contain hearsay/testimonial statements inadmissible at trial	Denied now; specific hearsay objections to be resolved at trial as offered
Undue prejudice / Rule 403	Government contends probative value outweighs prejudice for narrowed exhibits	Exhibits are unduly prejudicial and cumulative and should be excluded	Denied; court will perform Rule 403 balancing when evidence is offered
Cumulative evidence / volume of documents	Government will pare exhibits and remove certain items to avoid overinclusion	Excessive, cumulative documents should be excluded in limine	Denied; court expects to address cumulative concerns during trial presentation

United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2009) (motions in limine may be used to exclude unfairly prejudicial evidence)
Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (district courts may rule on admissibility before trial)
Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984) (in limine rulings are provisional and may change during trial)
United States v. Williams, 939 F.2d 721 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming use of in limine rulings to admit impeachment evidence)
Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2002) (trial courts have broad discretion on evidentiary rulings)
Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1999) (district courts afforded considerable latitude in Rule 403 balancing)
Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (U.S. 2000) (in limine rulings are not binding and may be revisited during trial)