Government’s Motions in Limine
To read about a specific motion, click on it below:
Government’s Motion – Knowledge
Government’s Motion – Ignorance of the Law and Advice of Counsel
Government’s Motion – Evidence of Defendant’s Regulated by NESHAPS
Government’s Motion – Expert Testimony
Government’s Motion – Expert Testimony
Government’s Motion – Expert Testimony
Government’s Motion – Expert Testimony
Government’s Motion In Limine – Government’s knowledge
In this motion, the government is asking the Court to prohibit the defendants from bringing in evidence about the government’s knowledge regarding the dangers of asbestos.
A key part of the government’s case will involve proof that Grace knew how dangerous asbestos was and failed to tell the government of those dangers. In this way, the government will try to prove that Grace obstructed justice and defrauded the government.
One of Grace’s defenses to this charge is that the government already knew how dangerous asbestos was. In other words, Grace asserts that it cannot be guilty of failing to tell the government something it already knew.
The government argues that this defense is no defense, and that Grace should not even be allowed to talk about what the government did or didn’t know about the dangers of asbestos. It contends that any failures of the regulatory agency – here, the EPA – to regulate asbestos cannot relieve Grace of its duty to come forth with evidence it had of the toxic effects of asbestos.
Readers can view:
Government’s Motion
Defendants’ Response
Government’s Reply
–Beth Brennan
Government’s Motion In Limine – Ignorance of the Law and Advice of Counsel
The Government seeks to exclude evidence and argument that Defendants did not know the legal requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) or the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and evidence and argument of an advice of counsel defense. Both statutes are so-called public welfare statutes, and the Government argues that it is not required to prove that Defendants knew their conduct was unlawful. It follows then, according to the Government, that Defendants should not be allowed to argue or present evidence of ignorance of the law because it would confuse the jury. The Government points out that the Court has already denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss some charges (Counts I – IV) on the same reasoning—that ignorance of the law is no defense.
The Government also charges that Defendants have “evidenced their intent to raise advice of counsel defenses,” but that such a defense is only applicable to “specific intent” crimes; whereas, the crimes charged here are “general intent” crimes (Counts II – IV). Defendants’ evidence and argument would be used to negate proof they had the requisite criminal mental state to commit the crimes charged. Ergo, argues the Government, it is inapplicable to charges relating violations of the CAA, which are general intent crimes.
According to the docket, there is no Response from Defendants to this motion. The Court has deferred its ruling on this issue until trial.
Readers can view:
–Kirsten Madsen