Pre Trial Motion Practice

Pretrial Motion Practice In Criminal Cases
[If you are a neophyte to the practice of law, review the definition of legal motions; note that the definition includes pretrial motions and in limine (1) motions but goes beyond both in its explanation introduction Pretrial motion practice is an important part of the overall pretrial preparation process that includes other components such as client interviewing and counseling, fact investigation, witness interviewing, finding and selecting experts, brainstorming and developing a case theory, discovery, etc. Because of the much more limited discovery and deposition [Florida is a notable exception in that it has liberal allowance for defense depositions.] practice that is normally available in criminal vis a vis civil cases, defenders will often have to depend on motion practice to discover the prosecution's case and find out what its witness are about. Motion practice allows the defense to have an impact in shaping the substantive and procedural structure of the case. eight quik tips re motion practice
Study and learn the rules of evidence, ethics, and procedure. The rules of the game are designed to ensure that the jury receives reliable evidence that respects individual rights belonging to accused (and sometimes to the accuser, e.g., rape shield laws).To conduct effective pretrial motion practice, defense counsel must know the applicable rules of procedure, ethics, and evidence. These rules are not picayune. They are the bricks of fair trial. If you want to be a true player in the game of courtroom warrior and win, you must master the rules. Mastering the rules means knowing how to apply them. As Confucius said,"The essence of knowledge is, having it, to apply it."

Success in your pretrial motion practice is in the details. [Note: For an example of the sort of procedure one must know to engage in motion practice, allow me to refer to my own jurisdiction, Texas. In Texas, a trial court has discretion to invoke an Article 28.01 CCP pretrial hearing procedure by notifying the parties; this means that the court may set a pretrial hearing to determine the defendant's pleadings, exceptions to form and/or substance of the indictment, motions for continuances, motions to suppress evidence, motion for change of venue, motions for discovery, motions regarding entrapment, and motion for interpreter. If the trial court does invoke the Article 28.01 procedure, the defendant must file such motions at least seven days prior to the hearing date; in the absence of timely filing, such matters will not be permitted to be raised unless the defense shows good cause. Since the trial court need not consider certain matters filed outside the time frame, timely filing of pretrial motions is essential.. Another example would be the requirement in a suppression hearing based on an allegedly defective search warrant that the warrant be included in the appellate record. In short, become familiar with the numerous procedural default speed bumps that your jurisdiction has created for defenders seeking correct rulings on motions.]
Don't file frivolous motions. You will lose the goodwill of the court and the opposition if you file unnecessary motions for purposes of harassment. Why infuriate the judge by wasting the court's time? There is a difference between being an offensive obstructionist and a zealous advocate
Know the difference between stock and swank. There may be certain pretrial motions that you will file in every criminal case, e.g., request for notice from the prosecution of intent to introduce evidence of uncharged misconduct and prior convictions of the accused, discovery of names of witnesses, etc. Other motions will only be filed when you have a good faith belief that they are relevant and consistent with your case theory. This means that you will typically have to gather enough information to determine that the motion is appropriate. Avoid filing "boilerplate," "fill-in-the-blanks" motions. Boilerplate motions often contain language that is inconsistent with your case theory. Instead, learn how to write motions that are tailormade for your case.
Use a checklist. Prepare yourself a checklist of all possible motions from which you can pick and choose in the individual case:
Start early: When should your start thinking about motions. Obviously, you don't wait until the day motions are due to be filed. Start a motion file in your pretrial practice notebook when you open the case. Jot down ideas.
Determine your primary and secondary goals. In some cases you may know that the chances of having your motion granted are slim. Still, you may find it useful to proceed with the motion if it will accomplish other goals, e.g., as an opportunity to conduct the functional equivalent of a discovery deposition. For example, if a hearing with live witnesses is held, you will be able to examine

opposition witnesses under oath. This can be useful in forcing the opposition witnesses to take a firm sworn position prior to trial and, also, in providing you with fruit for impeaching the witnesses with their prior inconsistent statements. Under the rules of evidence existing in many jurisdictions, the prior inconsistent statement given under oath in such hearings is also admissible for the truth of the matter stated, as an exemption from the hearsay rule. Another reason for going forward with a motion is to persuasively present your position to the court in the hope that the information you develop will have a favorable influence on the court's equitable exercise of discretion at future junctures in the case, even though the precise relief you seek by the motion may be refused or denied. .
Decide upon the content of your motion. Once you have decided that a certain motion is appropriate, you have to decide upon its content. The client is paying for your legal research and writing skills. Polish them by constantly trying to be a better writer and grammarian (1) (2 -Legal Writing in Plain English), (3 - The Bluebook of Grammar and Punctuation) and a better legal researcher (1), (2). There are some standard motions that will have the same content, e.g., a motion that the court reporter be ordered to record all testimony including the jury voir dire, argument, and bench conferences. Because the request will be the same for each case, once you have this motion in your word processor, you will file it in every case with few changes other than the caption. Many pretrial motions must be customized for the particular case. Always carefully proofread your motions to be sure that you didn't any words out. (Yes, you read that last sentence correctly.)

FREE RESOURCES FOR COMPILING A BANK OF USEFUL PRETRIAL AND TRIAL MOTIONS
[For those who are inexperienced in motion practice, One of the great tragedies of American justice is that it keeps those who defend indigent persons charged with crime woefully ignorant of ruling case law and procedure. It takes substantial portions of money and time to stay current with continual changes in the criminal law. The lawyers who need the most help, those who defend the poor and socially disadvantaged, are deprived by the system of essential training in law and procedure. Until this happens, it is hypocritical to proclaim that there is anything approaching equal access to justice in our society. Defenders on limited budgets should note that there are Internet resources that allow you to research and access cases for free. Bless Google's heart! (If only corporations did have hearts and souls.) Google hascome up with the makings of a fantastic resource known as Google Scholar and Advanced Scholar Research that allows you to read and download cases online for free and research available articles. Watch out West and Lexis!] If you are a criminal defense lawyer looking for free downloadable motions, here is a list of some Internet sites that may provide some cost-free assistance in providing sample motions and jury instructions: D,C. Federal Defender (This terrific site has many features, including downloadable motions.),. See also the publications of (1)), and Washington/Idaho Federal Defender (This excellent defender site includes a motion bank; you'll have to call to get a password.) Try this Louisiana capital defense site for a whole raft of over 90 downloadable motions, many that can be customized and used in non-capital cases. See also the Capital Defense Weekly, Death Penalty Defense, and the Capital Defense Network for more death penalty case motions as well as these resources: (1). The Clark County Indiana prosecutor also provides resources for death penalty prosecutions. This Texas Defender site also has a number of free downloadable motions,

as does the Colorado Public Defender. The Florida Public Defender has a number of capital defense motions downloadable in Word. This article describes pretrial motion practice from a Missouri perspective and also discusses the elements of a motion, e.g., the caption, the headline, the introduction, the lead, the factual basis, and the prayer for relief. Here's a discussion (no sample motions) of some of the typical defense motions filed in federal criminal cases. If you are interested in federal motions, check the various public defender web sites on this page's drop down menu. See also (1). This Ohio Public Defender site has a death penalty motions manual chock full of over sixty motions. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). Here are several lawyers with stock, common, nothing sophisticated motions on their web sites: (1 -TX), (2), (3-TX; this chap has his picture on each motion),( 4 - Wis.; motions and briefs) (4- Federal). You may even find some blawgs (Here's one. I don't vouch for it.) with sample motions. With regard to expert testimony, to see how one might raise a Daubert issue, take a look at these motions to exclude DNA evidence (1), (2) and handwriting, hair, and fiber analysis (1). There are also some Internet resources for those doing post-conviction writ work. (1), (2), (3). Those who subscribe to one of the large legal research engines like Westlaw can find motion resources with the criminal law databases, e.g., the Complete Manual of Criminal Forms can be found under the indentifier CMCRF.
PRETRIAL MOTION HEARINGS
- PRACTICE TIPS
+ The judge presiding holds the power. At the pretrial stage of a criminal case, the trial court judge holds the muscle power to issue or deny the orders a party seeks. The contempt power allows a judge to imprison or fine a person, including a lawyer or other officer of the court, who directly disobeys or resists a lawful court order or otherwise threatens to obstruct the administration of justice. The lawyer who respectfully refuses to comply

with the lawful order of a court can be held in civil contempt and fined or incarcerated pending compliance with the order. When compliance occurs the contemnor purges himself of contempt. Criminal contempt typically involves insolent behavior in the courtroom or obstructive behavior outside the courtroom. It is punished by fine or incarceration. The important thing to recognize is that the court has the power to enforce its orders granting motions. + The judge presiding will take sides. At some point in a vigorous pretrial motion process, the trial judge will start figuring out what the case is all about. When they do, they are going to take sides. It's a natural internal decision and will typically be camouflaged in outward neutrality. But the plain fact is that your judge will want the case to come out right. Trial judges have considerable discretion (wiggle room) over the outcome of pretrial maneuvers by the lawyers, e.g., when oral or affidavit evidence is given in support of a motion the trial judge in ruling on the motion may chose to believe or disbelieve any or all of a witness' testimony and the appellate court will not disturb any finding that is supported by the record. If you are trying to get a favorable ruling on your pretrial motions, the key is to conduct yourself at the pretrial hearings in a way that makes the judge want you to win. You are advocating to the court. At trial, when things become more formal and a jury is involved, the judge assumes the role of quiet referee and your advocacy focuses on the jury, but, even then, it's best to have a "neutral" referee who is silently rooting for you, rather than for your opponent. + Push your contention early on with a trial brief and an opening statement. Get your theory of the motion out front as early as possible. There are two things you can do to front your claim or contention early in the motion hearing process. First, prepare a bench (trial) brief before the hearing on your motion. In the bench brief set forth the following: caption of

the case, issue (the basic question raised by your motion in the context of the determinative facts), a statement of the ruling law applicable to the facts, a statement of the relevant facts in storybook form, a discussion of why the logical outcome of the application of the ruling law (cases, rules and statutes) to the facts leads to the desired conclusion, request for desired relief. In preparing the bench brief you'll have to research the statutes, rules and case law relating to the issue. Cite the relevant statutes and rules. Include the ruling cases, i.e., the ones that are similar to your case, and include salient quotes from the cited cases. Second, make a very brief opening statement at the beginning of the hearing on the motion in which you acquaint the court with the gist of your motion, e.g., what you are seeking and why in six sentences. Know exactly what you are going to say in this opening statment, and rehearse it a couple of times. + Use exhibits and visuals to persuade. Consider using electronic technologyto present visuals at your pretrial hearing? Software may allow you to present useful information, e.g. a timeline that you create as you question a witness. Know how much time you are going to be fairly allowed for your motion hearing. If the hearing a quickie, you are probably wasting time in trying to prepare electronic exhibits. Judges may simply not have enough time for you to present a PowerPoint slide show in connection with the hearing. If there is time, make sure your laptop screen setting is set properly so that it interfaces with the courtroom projector. Bring the right hook-ups for your laptop. Know whether the courtroom has WiFi (wireless) connections. You'll probably need advance sign-in credentials to use the wireless connection. If you are using a wirfeless remote, make sure it's working. Come in beforehand and make sure your equipment works. Remeber to refer to the exhibit number opf your electronic exhibits and verbally indicate for the record what is being shown with telestrators, finger line drawings, etc. If you are displaying a prior inconsistent statement for impeachment, be sure to read the contents into evidence. The main

consideration in using technology at the hearing is that you don't want to appear to be wasting the court's time in your presentation at the hearing. See Exhibits and Courtroom Technology. + Use the cartoon method in planning your questioning to create mental images. When you present your facts, make them come alive in visual images that you want the judge to picture in mind. As you plan your presentation, use the cartoon method of visualizing the facts of your motion as a four panel cartoon. Paint those images for the judge with testimony, a bench brief, and a brief oral argument at the end of the hearing . + Look for a compelling theme. Facts are the meat of your argument. Look for the facts that show a wrong that has been done or a wrong that needs to be righted or fairness that needs to be afforded. + Scout the judge. Know your judge. The judge may not know you. Be honest. Be truthful. Be prepared to defend the assertions you make. + Be cogent and succint. Judges are very time-conscious. Use your time in an efficient and economical manner. Be totally prepared. Be understandable. Know the applicable law and facts. Take command of the courtroom by your display of cool competence. At the beginning of the hearing, give the judge a one or two page list of your main points and arguments and sum them iup in a brief opening, see trial brief and opening above. + Lead with your strongest point. When you present your motion, start with the strongest point. You'll have a couple of minutes of the court's attention. + Maximize the design of the courtroom and the demeanor of your witnesses to influence the judge. Courtrooms are not designed for

witnesses to testify to the judge. Yet, the court functions as a judge of witness credibility at motion hearings involving issues of fact. Have your witnesses turn and face the judge when testifying to major points. You can cue the witness beforehand to establish eye contact with the judge when you use a phrase such as, "Tell (or show) the judge." If the courtroom design is so hideous that the judge will be unable see the witnesses, consider asking the court to allow the witnesses to testify from the jury box. When your witnesses are explaining something to the judge presiding, prep them to look directly at the judge, establishing eye contact, and to say "Your Honor," as a lead to their direct explanations. + Use the motion hearings as a petri dish for previewing witnesses. Use the motion hearing to evaluate and test the strength and credibility of the witnesses, yours and the opposition's. Try to get a feel for the effectiveness of opposing counsel. Look for flaws that you can exploit at trial. + Present a brief and cogent argument at the conclusion of the hearing. Always make a brief fact and law based argument in support of your motion. Defenders, when they are the movant, usually get to have the last word at argument of the motion. Check your applicable rules of procedure. Prepare an outline of what you want to say, e.g., a brief introduction, your key points and the supporting authorities and facts, and a conclusion. Then rehearse or moot your argument. [Follow the suggestions re eye contact, gestures, voice, etc. contained in Delivery of Argument.] Prepare and use a global visual that clarifies your overall argument. When you present your position in argument, don't be pushy or overly verbose or dramatic. Focus the argument on your strong points, but address and dismantle the opposition's strongest points. Burying your head in the sand won't make unfavorable points disappear. Use your legal research skills to find the latest cases. When you cite cases, have a copy available and

always act (even though it is probably not true) as if the trial judge already knows the ruling case law you are citing, e.g., "As you well know (are aware), Your Honor, State v. Smith, at volume __, page __ of Southwestern 3rd states, and I quote, '(read the relevant language from a copy of the case that you have appended to your bench brief)'." + Invite and answer any questions from the bench. Juries can't ask questions during the opening and argument, but judges at motion hearings often do. Be prepared to be interrupted with questions from the bench. If the judge asks questions during your opening or argument on the motion, respond directly. Don't avoid the issue. When your respond directly to the question asked, try to weave your relevant point (argument) into the response. Be careful not to concede points that will undermine the thrust of your argument. To maintain or heighten your ethos (honesty, integrity, trust), concede facts that are beyond dispute (indisputable facts). Always think in advance about the possible inferences that can logically arise from a premise. Don't argue with the judge. + Lose the battle but wing the war. Keep in mind that you can score points and achieve secondary goals, e.g., discovery, impeachment, convincing the judge, even though you don't achieve the primary goal of having your motion granted. If you are seeking information, your questioning of opposition witnesses, e.g., police officers, will have the characteristics of a direct examination. That is, you will ask open-ended who, what , when , where, why, and how questions; you will also pose follow-up questions when the witness evades. If you are seeking meat for later impeachment, you will want to pin the opposing witness' story down at the motion hearing so you will have a boxed in witness at trial. + Facilitate deferred rulings in your favor. Often the trial judge will defer ruling and take the motion under advisement for a period of time before

issuing a ruling. When time comes to rule on the motion, the judge's memory of the motion hearing may be faint. It will help the judge remember your argument if you make it a practice to provide the judge with a written summary of your argument on the motion. The judge won't read it at that time, but if you make sure that the summary is placed in the court file, chances are that the judge will review it when considering the appropriate ruling. It may increase your chances of a favorable ruling. Immediately before your argument, say, " Your honor, to save you from having to take notes during my argument on the motion, I've prepared a written summary. I''d like to offer for the file simply as a memory aid that will save the court from having to take notes during my argument." + At trial, ask for reconsideration of the negative ruling. If the trial court rules against your motion to suppress at the pretrial stage, always ask the trial court to reconsider its ruling when the opposition seeks to introduce the evidence at trial. This request is essential if additional evidence is adduced at trial that supports the motion. [Remember that if the trial court's ruling on your motion is correct on any theory of the law, + If you are relying on the hearing as a method of deposing opposing witnesses, your approach to cross is differs from that employed at trial. If you are using a motion hearing as a way of getting discovery and/or sworn testimony from the other side's witnesses that can be used for impeachment or as probative evidence, your method of cross-examination will be "bass ackwards" from the traditional approach that we take to cross at trial. See Cross-Examination. In the motion hearing for discovery or impeachment, you may want to allow the opposing witness to talk; that means open-ended questions. You will often want to ask follow-up questions. You may even ask for hearsay and for otherwise inadmissible lay opinion.

+ Resources. Check this site for some good practice tips with regard to specific issues that can arise in suppression motion hearings, e.g., tailored police testimony. If you want the citations in your bench brief or memorandum to be in proper form, the Cornell Citation page will give you the answers you need.
EXAMPLES OF STANDARD PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DEFENSE MOTIONS If you want something to happen or you don't want something to happen within the procedural framework of the case, you're going to have to ask the court to issue an order. You make the request for a trial court order by means of a motion. The trial judge will handle housekeeping matters sua sponte (on its own motion without any request from a party), but for the most part you can't count on the trial court to control the opposition without a formal request, i.e., motion, from you. Some motions will suffice on their own face to support the issuance of a dispositive order by the court. Other motions will require supporting evidence, e.g., an affidavit. In some instances, particularly those involving disputed facts, it will be necessary to adduce oral testimony at a hearing on the motion. Here's a list of some federal cases holding criminal defense trial counsel ineffective, under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, for failure to file certain motions. What follows is a smorgasbord of titles to plus 150 standard motions that might be filed by defenders. Although most of these motions could be filed in any jurisdiction, Here's a potpourri of titles to motions that you may want to adopt, adapt, or compose:
Motion for Court Reporter to Make a Full and Complete Record of All Hearings or Court Proceedings - Motion to Preserve Evidence Otherwise Subject to Destruction, Corruption, or Contamination
Motion to Use Best Practices in Lineups and Eyewitness Interviews (1)
Motion to Restrict Publicity Motion to Prevent Ex Parte Contact with Judge (or Jurors) -
Nonresident Attorney's Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice ["Pro Hac Vice" is Latin for "for this occasion or particular purpose" and is used here when a lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in a particular jurisdiction seeks temporary admission there to try one case.].
Motion to Prevent Ex Parte Communication with the Court by the Prosecution Except as Permitted by Law or Court Order -.
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel Motion to Withdraw as Counsel Due to Conflict of Interests with the Defendant and Objection to Being Forced to Represent the Defendant in Light of Such Conflict - Motion for a Hearing on Defendant's Competence to Waive Counsel - United States Constitution permits states to insist upon representation by counsel for those who are competent enough to stand trial but who still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves.
Defendant's Motion to Proceed Pro Se at Trial Defendant's Request for Standby Counsel - McKaskle v. Wiggins ,465 U.S. 168 (1984).
Motion by Court-Appointed Counsel that the Court Determine Whether the Defendant Who Wishes to Proceed Pro Se Is Making This Decision Knowingly and Voluntarily - Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). (1) Motion to Substitute Counsel Motion to Set Bond - Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951); Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357(1971); Harris v. United States , 404 U.S. 1232 (1971); United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987). See ABA Standards - Pretrial Release (2002).
Motion to Reduce Bond - Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 US 357 (1971). Motion to Modify Conditions of Bond Motion for a Preliminary Hearing [Note: Texas is the only state in the nation that calls the preliminary hearing an "Examining Trial"]
Motion for a Transcription of Evidence Presented at Preliminary Hearing Challenge to the Array of Grand Jurors - Articles 19.27, 19.30 CCP (Texas Code of Criminal Procedure).
Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena Dueces Tecum - United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973); United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974); United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292

(1991); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972); Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273 (1919).

Challenge to a Particular Grand Juror - Articles 19.27, 19.31 CCP. Motion to Require the Grand Jury to Record the Information Presented to It by the Prosecutor and Witnesses Motion to Preserve Grand Jury Testimony of Witnesses Who Testified or Otherwise Provided Evidence Motion to Adopt Pretrial Motions of Co-Defendant Motion to Quash (Set Aside) Indictment- Exception to the Indictment - Articles 21.02, 21.21, 27.03, 27.08, 27.09, 27.11, 27.12, 28.01 CCP. Here (1) is a 150 page memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss a federal indictment and for a bill of particulars.
Motion to Prevent Use of Prior Conviction for Enhancement - (1 federal)
Motion to Require the Prosecution to List the Names of Witnesses Upon Whose Testimony the Indictment was Found Art. 20.20 CCP.
Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty - A.B.A. Standards - Guilty Plea (1999).
Motion to Require Specific Performance of Binding Plea Bargain by the Government (Add: ,and If the Court Does Not Require the Prosecution to Honor the Promises It Made, That the Defendant Be Allowed to Withdraw His/Her Plea - Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971); Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970);

Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504 (1984). See federal cases involving withdrawal of a plea, see Rule 11(d) Fed. R. Crim. Proc : Puckett v. United States, __U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 1423 (2009).
Motion to Adopt Motions and Pleading Filed by Defense in the Previous Trial of This Case
Defendant's Special Plea in Bar Based on Former Acquittal, Former Conviction, Improper Termination, or Collateral Estoppel - Art. 27.05 CCP
Defendant's Plea of Double Jeopardy (or Collateral Estoppel) Benton v. Maryland, 395 US 784 (1969); Blockburger v. United States, 284 US 299 (1932); Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970); Yeager v. United States, __U.S.__, 129 U.S. 2360 (2009).
Defendant's Plea of Double Jeopardy to Bar Retrial After Defendant Successfully Moved for Mistrial When the Prosecutor Engaged in Conduct That Was Intended to Provoke the Defendant Into Moving for A Mistrial, - Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982); on this front, Texas lawyers got some bad news from the ex-prosecutor dominated Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex parte Lewis, 219 S.W.3d 335 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
Motion to Set Aside Indictment (or Information or Complaint) for Denial of Speedy Trial Note that there is federal Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 USC 3161 et seq, see Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (2006); Bloate v. United States, __ U.S. __ (2010) holding that delay resulting from the defendant's request for additional time to prepare pretrial motions is not automatically excludable from the 70day limit under the federal speedy trial act. ABA Standards - Speedy Trial (2004).
Motion for Discovery - (1 , 2 & 3 federal case law and Rule 16 Fed. R. Crim Proc.); Art. 39.14 CCP. [Re expert opinion under Articles 7 of TRE and FRE - Regarding opposing experts request that the opposition provide you with the business addresses and phone numbers of the opposition's experts, copies of all written reports and bench and field notes made by their experts or , if no reports were made, a summary of their experts' anticipated testimony; also, request that the opposition provide you with its expert witnesses' qualifications and opinions as well as the factual data or underlying information upon which the experts' opinion will be based.
Motion that the Prosecution Be Required to Reveal Material that Would in Its Nature Be Exculpatory of Guilt and/or Mitigating of Punishment and that the Duty to Reveal Such Material Be a Continuing One Throughout the Case - Motion to Compel the Prosecution to Take Steps to Learn of Any Evidence Favorable to the Defendant That Is Known to Other Persons Acting for the Government Team, e.g., the Police
Motion for Discovery of Eyewitness Evidence , See Eyewitness Misidentification.
Motion for a List of Prosecution Witnesses Motion for Disclosure of Grand Jury Testimony of Witnesses for Which There Is a Particularized Need
Motion for Court Order for Access to Allow Defense Inspection of Scene of Alleged Offense
Motion to Physically Inspect, Examine, and Forensically Analyze Tangible Items of Potential Evidence
Motion for Discovery of Software Source Code to Access Program that Runs Breath Alcohol Measuring Instrument (e.g. Intoxilyzer 5000, DataMaster, etc.) Utilized by Government to Analyze Breath Sample in DUI (DWI) Case
Motion to Require the Government to Reveal Any Agreement Between Any Agent or Agency of the Government and Any Government Witness - Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S.150 (1972).
Motion to Disclose the Identity of the Government's Informant(s) - Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957).
Motion to Preclude Creation of Informant Testimony (1) Motion to Require the Government to Produce the Government's Informant for Trial Motion to Disclose the Present Whereabouts of the Government's Informant for Purposes of a Defense Subpoena Motion to Observe Searches for Trace Evidence Conducted by Law Enforcement Agents and Forensic Criminalists on Evidence Seized and Impounded by Agents of the Prosecution See Expert Testimony
Motion to Have Defense Expert Present to Observe and Record Scientific Testing Conducted by the Prosecution's Forensic Evidence Agents See Expert Testimony
Motion for Quantitative Weight Analysis of Alleged Contraband (Controlled Substance or Dangerous Drug) When the Alleged Contraband Is in a Dry Condition - If weight of a controlled substance or other alleged item of contraband is of importance to the

sanction that may be imposed, ask that the sample of alleged contraband be weighed after removal of residual water, i.e., being dried with a "desiccator," a machine common to every crime laboratory. The point is that your client is charged and will be punished based on possession, sale, delivery, etc., of the contraband substance, not water. Also, include a request that the sample be weighed only on a scale that has been properly calibrated for balance accuracy.
Motion for a Physical Medical Examination of the Complaining Witness
Motion for Psychological/Psychiatric Examination Motion for Preparation of Transcript from Tape Recordings and for Pretrial Conference to Agree Upon a Stipulation as to Accuracy of Transcript of the Tape Recording and Admissibility of Transcript at Trial as a Listening Aid for the Jury
Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum - Art. 24.02 CCP Request for Notice of Prosecution's Intent to Offer Proof of Uncharged Misconduct Under the Auspices of Rule 404(b) TRE
Request to the Prosecution for Notice of Prosecution's Intent to Impeach Witness with Proof of Prior Conviction(s) Under Rule 609 TRE
Request to the Prosecution for Notice of Prosecution's Intent to Introduce Evidence Under Article 37.07 CCP - Including Prior Criminal Record of the Defendant & Character Evidence Regarding the Defendant & Evidence of Defendant's Uncharged

Misconduct & Prior Convictions for Felonies or Misdemeanors Punishable by Jail Time
Motion to Produce Journalist's Reports Motion for Disclosure of Intercepted Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communication - Motion for Deposition of Witnesses by the Defense - Articles 39.02, 39.06 (written interrogatories) CCP.
Motion to Take Testimony of Child Complainant Motion to Record Testimony of Child Complainant Motion to Require Live Testimony of Child Complainant - Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965); Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988); but see Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990). See also Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) discussed below.
Motion to Permit Entry Onto Property for Purposes of Inspection Motion for Severance of Offenses and Relief from Unfairly Prejudicial Joinder - Section 3.02, 3.04 TPC; Rule 14 F. R. Crim. Proc.; ABA Standards - Joinder & Severance (1980).
Motion for Severance of Parties (Defendants) and Relief from Unfairly Prejudicial Joinder - Article 36.09 CCP; Rule 14 F. R. Crim. Proc.; (Sample Federal Motion - 11 pages)
Motion for an Translator (Interpreter) Due Process Motion for Investigative Funds to Obtain the Service of a Competent Expert in the Field of (state the relevant field of expertise) to Assist the Indigent Defendant and Defense Counsel in Preparing and Presenting the Defense of (state the

relevant defense) - Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (1)(2)(3) [Note: Ake doesn't mean much in some states, e.g. Georgia, where you might occasionally run into a trial court judge who is apathetic to basic concepts of fairness.] See Expert Testimony See also ABA Standard for Criminal Justice: The Defense Function, Standard 4-4.1.

Motion for Reimbursement of Investigative Expenses Motion to Disqualify (Recuse) Judge - Article 30.01 CCP; Ward v. Mayor of Monroeville, 409 US 57 (1972); Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Lavoie, 475 US 813 (1986); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927). Here's a lengthy explanation of the law surrounding recusal of a judge in Texas; ABA Standards - Special Function of the Trial Judge (1999).
Motion for Voluntary Recusal (Removal) as Judge Motion to Disqualify the Prosecutor (or Defender) On the Ground that S/he Is a Necessary Witness - ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7 indicates that a lawyer shall not act as an advocate at a trial in which s/he is likely to be a necessary witness unless the testimony relates to an uncontested issue, the testimony relates to the value of the legal services in the case or the disqualification of the lawyer would work a substantial hardship on the client.
Motion to Recuse the Prosecutor on Ethical Grounds - A number of grounds for alleging professional misconduct of a prosecutor can be found at these sites (1 - opinions), (2 - bibliography of articles re ethics of prosecutors) See CCJA Ethics.
Motion for Competency Examination to Determine Present Fitness of Accused to Stand Trial - ABA Standards - Mental Health (1988).
Motion for Hearing to Determine Accused's Present Competency to Stand Trial - Pate v. Robinson, 383 US 375 (1966); Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975).
Motion to Prevent Compelled Forced Medication (Use of Drugs) Upon the Defendant at His Trial - Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992). But see Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 116 (2003).
Motion for Defense Counsel to Be Notified a Reasonable Time Prior to Any Mental Examination of Accused by State or CourtAppointed Experts
Motion for Examination of the Accused Re Insanity (Mental Condition and Responsibility) at Time of Alleged Offense
Notice of Defense Intent to Rely on Insanity Defense Motion to Adopt Objections of Co-Defendant at Pretrial Hearing Motion for Change of Venue - Article 31.03 CCP; See also Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966); Groppi v. Wisconsin, 400 U.S. 505 (1971); Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976); Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025. (1984); Skilling v. United States, __ U.S. __ (2010); ABA Standards - Fair Trial & Free Press (1992). Good little article. [Tip: Keep track of any online mention of your case with Google Alerts; these could be useful evidence at a hearing on change of venue.]
Motion to Prevent Prosecution from Referring to the Complainant as "the Victim" Motion to Prevent Prosecutorial Reference to Alleged Previous Convictions Alleged for Enhancement Prior to Verdict of Guilty on Primary Offense
Motion to Prevent Jurors from Being Informed of Nature of Prior Convictions Alleged for Enhancement in Order to Prevent Unfair Prejudice
Motion to Prevent Receipt of Evidence from the Prosecution Relating Hearsay Testimony of Unavailable Witness' on the Ground that the Defendant Has Not Been Afforded the Opportunity to Confront the Hearsay Declarant Regarding the Out-of-Court Statement as Required by the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause -
Motion to Exclude Cooperating Witness' Testimony and Request for a Reliability Hearing - (1)
Motion to Stay Civil Action Pending Resolution of Criminal Charge - When your criminal client is facing a parallel civil lawsuit or investigation by a governmental agency for civil misconduct, e.g., fraud, it is very dangerous to allow the client to make statements in connection with the civil case because the statements may wind up being used by the government in the parallel criminal prosecution; it is not uncommon for government agencies investigating civil misconduct to share damaging information with the prosecuting arm of the government. If your client is a person, be extremely wary of waiving the privilege against self-incrimination and talking in the civil proceeding. Take a look at these cases involving parallel civil and

criminal cases to get a leg up in your research: United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1 (1970) involving parallel civil FDA investigation and criminal prosectuion for misbranding; United States v. Stringer, 535 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2008) and United States v. Scrushy, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (N.D. Ala. 2005) involved parallel civil SEC securities fraud investigation and criminal prosecution for perjury, false statements and criminal securities fraud.
Motion to Suppress Illegal Obtained Statement/Confession and for Hearing - From the perspective of Bill of Rights constitutional law, your motion and hearing will be focusing on the Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to give testimony against oneself, the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel, and the Fourteenth Amendment due process protection against involuntary confession (the free and voluntary rule).
Motion to Suppress Confession of Co-Defendant - Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968); Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 (1968); Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186 (1987); Gray v. Maryland , 523 U.S. 185 (1998). [Note that the so-called Bruton Rule, prohibiting the admissibility in a jury trial of a co-defendant's statement that directly incriminates the defendant under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, is inapplicable when the defendant testifies in his/her own behalf. See Nelson v. O'Neal, 402 U.S. 622 (1971); in joint trials, the solution for the prosecution is to offer a redacted version of the co-defendant's statement the omits all references to the defendant; be certain that the redacted statement is only read to the jurors and is not visually displayed to them. See the Motion to Redact Inadmissible Evidence from Admissible Evidence that follows this squib.]
Motion to Redact Inadmissible Evidence from Admissible Evidence - [When moving to redact inadmissible evidence from admissible evidence, move the court to so structure the admissible evidence that there is no reference or implication regarding the existence of the excluded (redacted) evidence. This motion may be appropriate, for example, when a document contains both inadmissible and inadmissible statements, e.g., a business record that contains statements not within the personal knowledge of the maker or an otherwise admissible confession of a co-defendant containing inadmissible statements implicating the non-testifying defendant at their joint trial. See Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 125 (1998) regarding co-defendant's statements; see also Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987). ]
Motion to Suppress Illegally Intercepted Communications and for Hearing - (1 - Challenging Federal Wiretap Evidence) Article 18.20 Section 14 CCP; ABA Electronic Surveillance Standards - Part A & Part B (2001); Federal: Electronic Surveillance Laws; Consensual Recording Law; USCode/CFR; USC update; CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement ) web site.
Motion to Suppress (Exclude) Tangible Evidence - (1) Motion to Suppress Illegally Obtained Evidence and for Hearing (1 - 28 pages of basic federal case law), (2), (3 - 10 pages of federal case law regarding automobile search), (4 - sample); Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) warrantless search of private home improper; Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313 (1921) warrantless search of private home improper ; Agnello v. United States 269 U.S. 20 (1925) warrantless search of private home improper; Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 (1927) search of

private home with defective warrant; United States v. Berkeness, 275 U.S. 149 (1927) search of private home with defective warrant; Taylor v. United States, 286 U.S. 1 (1932) warrantless search of private home improper; Grau v. United States, 287 U.S. 124 (1932) search of private home with improper warrant; Nathanson v. United States 290 U.S. 41 (1933) search of private home with warrant improper; McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 (1948) warrantless search of private home improper; Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959) existence of probable cause and reasonable grounds for warrantless arrest and subsequent search; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (overruling Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) discussion of "fruit of poisonous tree" doctrine and connection between illegal arrest and statement becoming "so attenuated as to dissipate the taint"; Motion to Go Beyond the Face of the Affidavit Supporting the Search Warrant and Challenge the Truthfulness of Statements Made in the Affidavit - (This motion (1) is based on the case of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
Motion to Exclude Fruits of Electronic Surveillance - Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); United States v. White, 401 U.S.745 (1971); Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001); ABA Standards - Electronic Surveillance - Part A & Part B (2001); Electronic Surveillance Laws; Consensual Recording Law.
Motion for Suppression of Fungible Evidence Due to Fatal Flaw in Chain of Custody - See State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746 (Tenn. 2000).
Motion for Blind, Sequential Lineup - See Eyewitness Misidentification. See also Motion to Use Best Practices in Lineup and Eyewitness Interviews; NYSDA Hot Topics in Eyewitness Evidence links to current cases and downloadable motions; (1 - 76 pages), (2 - NLADA links), (3 - NACDL links)
Motion to Apply a Rational Due Process Analysis Under the State and Federal Constitution to the Test the Trial Court Uses to Reliability of the Eyewitness Identification and Ergo the Admissibility of the Identification - See Eyewitness Misidentification for discussion and authorities.
Motion to Suppress Photographic Spread and for Hearing on Illegal Identification - United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300 (1973); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968). See Eyewitness Misidentification.
Motion to Suppress Lineup Identification and In-Court Identification and for Hearing on Illegal Identification - (1 - 11 pages re identification evidence under the 5th and 6th Amendments), (2 - Sample) United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967); Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967); Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972): Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977); Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 ( 1969); but see, Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967). See also State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 (Utah 1991). See Eyewitness Misidentification.
Motion to Exclude Expert Opinion Testimony - ( 1 - sexual assault case), (2 - CCJA Expert Testimony)
Motion to Exclude DNA - (1)

Motion to Exclude Handwriting, Hair, and Fiber Evidence - (1) Motion to Exclude Cooperating Witness Testimony and Request for Reliability Hearing - (1)
Motion for In-Court Lineup - Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220 (1977). Motion for Separate Hearing on Entrapment as a Matter of Law United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973); Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992) On the use of informants, see also Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206 (1966); Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966)
Motion for Hearing on Admissibility for Impeachment Under Rule 609 FRE or TRE of Defendant's Alleged Prior Convictions
Motion in Sexual Assault Case to Admit Evidence of Prior Sexual Conduct of Complainant - (1)
Motions Regarding Capital Cases - See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) holding that death as a punishment for crime is not in and of itself a violation of the Eighth Amendment); Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) holding that a death sentence for certain crimes, e.g., rape of adult female, is grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment under the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; Motion that the Court Make Findings or Fact and Conclusions of Law at Contested Hearing Where Facts and/or Law Are at Issue
Motion to Prevent Proof of Defendant's Prior Convictions Under the Balancing Test of Rule 609 TRE; Rule 609 FRE
Motion to Require the Opposition to Have Statements of Its Witnesses Available at Hearing and Trial for Inspection Prior to Cross-Examination of Such Witnesses - Rule 615 TRE; Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3500 (federal)
Motion to Compel the Government to Produce Statements of Government Witnesses for Discovery and Inspection Prior to Defense Cross-Examination of Each Such Witness - Rule 615 TRE (Texas); Rule 26.2 F.R.Crim.P. and Jencks Act 18 U.S.C. Section 3500) (federal); Tip: Defenders should remember to ask that the prosecution produce any qualifying statement that the complaining witness made to the Victim's Advocate Office associated with the prosecutor's office.
Motion to Compel Prosecution to Submit Written or Recorded Statements of Government Witness for an En Camera Review by the Court to Determine Whether Witness Statement Should Be Produced for Discovery and Inspection
Defendant's Offer to Stipulate to Facts Where Witness Testimony Regarding Such Facts Would Present Unfairly Prejudicial Aspects of Testimony that Outweigh Its Probative Value - See Rule 403 TRE and FRE403; Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (1).
Motion to Permit Accused to Appear in Court at Trial and other Public Hearings Dressed in Civilian Clothes and Without Shackles or Other Restraints -See Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 522 (1985) holding that the use of special courtroom security arrangement involving having uniformed security personnel sit in the first row of courtroom spectator section did not entail the inherent prejudice of binding and gagging; Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) holding

that where a court, without adequate explanation, orders the defendant to wear shackles - leg irons, handcuffs and a belly chain that will be seen by jury at the punishment phase of his capital trial, the defendant need not demonstrate actual prejudice to make out a due process claim; Illinois v.Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) holding that an obstreperous, disruptive defendant may lose rights, including right to be be present during trial, but due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments requires that shackling and gagging should be tried only as a last resort due to the impact on the presumption of innocence, the right to communicate with counsel, and the necessity of an appearance of dignity in the judicial process.
Motion to Prevent the Involuntary Medication of the Accused During Trial - Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992).
Motion for Speedy Trial - Doggett v. United States, 505 US 647 (1992); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) detailing the four factor test: (1) length of the delay, (2) reason for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of his right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant; Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967). Note: There may be a speedy trial statute in your jurisdiction, see, for example, The Federal Speedy Trial Act, 18 USC Section 3161-3174.
Motion for Continuance Before Trial Has Begun - Articles 29.03 29.09 CCP.
Motion for Continuance After Trial Has Begun - Article 29.13 CCP. Motion to Require Transcription of Testimony from Pretrial Hearing in Case at Bar for Use As Extrinsic Evidence of Prior Inconsistent Statements at Trial of Case at Bar
Motion to Require Transcription of Defendant's Prior Trial for Offense At Bar Motion to Transcribe Prior Sworn Testimony of Co-Defendant in Co-Defendant's Severed Trial for Offense At Bar Motion for a Separate Jury for a Defendant Who is Forced to Be Tried with a Co-Defendant Motion Challenging the Array of Jurors Motion for Special Venire Motion for Instructions to the Panel of Prospective Jurors Prior to Commencement of Lawyer Questioning Motion for Instructions to the Panel of Jurors Selected for the Case Motion for List of Jurors Motion for Jury Questionnaire See Jury Selection. Motion that the Court Retain the Completed Jury Questionnaires as Part of the Record of the Case See Jury Selection.
Motion for Random Selection (Shuffle) of Names of Jurors Selected from Members of General Panel or Panel for the Case Article 35.11 CCP. See Jury Selection
Motion for Information Concerning Prospective Juror's Criminal History Accessible Only to and Accessed by the Prosecution from Government Controlled Restricted Sources Including the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) See Jury Selection.
Motion Requesting that Challenges for Cause Be Made at the Bench with Individual Follow-Up Questions of Questionable Prospective Jurors at the Conclusion of General Questioning of the Panel See Jury Selection.
Motion for Additional Peremptory Challenges See Jury Selection. Motion Challenging the Seating of the Jury Due to Improper Use of Peremptory Challenges Based On Race and/or Gender Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991); Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991); J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel T.B, 511 U.S. 127 (1994) (gender); Georgia v. McCollum, 506 U.S. 42 (1992); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991); Campbell v. Louisiana, 523 U.S. 392 (1998); Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005); Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005); See Jury Selection for further explanation of the cases and strategic advice.
Motion Prior to Opening Statement to Require Counsel to Request and Obtain Court Approval Before Introducing Topics That May Have A Significant Potential for Unfair Prejudice - This might include evidence of prior convictions, uncharged misconduct, character, privileged communication, the defendant's silence, invocation of constitutional rights, an unkept promise that the accused will testify in his own behalf and tell the jury certain facts, etc
Motion for Attachment of Witness Who Has Failed to Appear in Response to Duly Served Subpoena - Article 24.12 CCP
Application for Court Grant of Qualified Testimonial (or Transactional) Immunity for Defense Witness (1 - Fifth

Amendment) Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) government may compel grand jury testimony from witnesses over Fifth Amendment objections if the witnesses receive "use and derivative use immunity"; Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn., Inc. v. Commissioner of Sanitation of City of New York, 392 U.S. 280 (1968) allowing the government to use economic compulsion to secure statements but ony if the government grants appropriate immunity

Motion to Allow Jurors to Take Notes Motion Invoking the Rule of Witnesses Request to Excuse Witness from Application of the Rule of Witnesses and Sequestration
Motion to Require Witness Who Has Been Excused from the Rule of Witnesses and Sequestration to Prepare and File with the Court Prior to Testifying a Written Statement of His Factual Knowledge of the Case in Order to Prevent or Reveal Any Tailoring of Testimony Based on Factual Evidence the Witness Hears from the Witness Stand Before Testifying - See Beloof et al, The Crime Victim's Right to Attend the Trial: The Reascendant National Consensus, 1 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 481 (2005).
Motion to Require the Complaining Witness (or Other Witness) Who Has Been Excused from Application of Rule of Witnesses and Sequestration to Be Required to Be the Prosecution's First Fact Witness
Motion for Voir Dire Examination of Opposition's Expert Witness Prior to the Admission into Evidence of Any Expert Opinion

Testimony from Such Witness or Underlying Facts or Data Upon Which Such Opinion May Be Based
Motion for Hearing to Determine Competency of Opposition's Witness to Testify as an Expert Motion for Hearing to Determine the Competency of Opposition's Character Witnesses and the Admissibility of Character Testimony on Specific Traits of the Accused, the Witnesses, and /or the Complainant
Motion to Conduct Arraignment of Accused Out of the Jury's Presence Motion in Limine* to Prevent Speaking Objections and Argument on Objections by Counsel in the Presence of the Jury. * Note: In Limine in Latin means "at the beginning" or "on the threshold." It is often attached to the title of motions that ask the trial court to make a preliminary ruling barring the opposition from engaging in specific conduct or inquiring about specific subjects, unless opposing counsel approaches the bench and notifies the court and counsel that s/he then intends to engage in the conduct or inquire about the subject.]
Motion to Prevent Counsel from Displaying to the Jury and Any Witness from Testifying to the Contents of Any Exhibits, not Previously Preadmitted, Unless and Until Such Exhibits are Received in Evidence
Motion Requesting the Trial Court to Refrain from Commenting in the Jury's Presence on the Weight and/or Credibility of the Evidence or Otherwise Indicating the Trial Court's Opinion of

the Evidence Presented to the Jury - ABA Standards - Special Functions of the Trial Judge (1999).
Motion to Prevent the Trial Court from Questioning Any Witness in the Presence of the Jury (Add if appropriate: Unless the Trial Court Has Both Advised Counsel of the Trial Court's Belief that Further Questioning Should Take Place and Provided Counsel with the Opportunity to Put Such Questions to the Witness )
Motion for Jury View of Scene Motion to Prevent the Trial Court from Admonishing Defense Witnesses in Unnecessarily Strong Terms Regarding the Witnesses' Right to Refuse to Testify - Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 (1972).
Motion to Limit Prosecution's Jury Argument - United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985): Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986). See also Objections to Jury Argument for a long list of potential objection to the opponent's jury argument.
Objections to the Trial Court's Written Instructions to the Jury Article 36.14 CCP.
Motion that the Trial Court Give Requested Special Written Instructions - Article 36.15 CCP
Motion that the Jurors Be Permitted to Have a Written Copy of the Court's Jury Instructions for Use While Deliberating [Editorial Comment: Several states, notably South Carolina and New Jersey, follow an anachronistic practice of denying trial jurors access to a written copy of the court's instructions; I recently listened to a South Carolina judge in a robbery -murder case read from written

instructions for well over half an hour; the legally trained and experienced judge was clearly unable to recite any of the instructions from memory; yet the lawmakers of South Carolina apparently expect each group of jurors, totally untrained in the law, to remember the intricacies and nuances of the copious instructions that they only hear orally in criminal cases; sorry, but this shameful practice defies reason.]
Motion that Each Juror Be Provided with a Written Copy of the Court's Instructions to the Jury
Motion to Reopen for Additional Testimony After Resting Motion for Instructed (Directed) Verdict of Not Guilty [Note: This motion can be made at the conclusion of the prosecution's case-inchief. Concerning the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to support conviction, the trial court does not substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Instead, the issue for the trial judge is whether there is sufficient evidence upon which a rational jury could decide that the prosecution proved the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. Even though the trial judge might have granted the motion on the same evidence at a bench trial, the motion for instructed (directed) verdict conviction will be properly denied on the sufficiency of the evidence issue if a rational jury could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The same standard is used on appeal after conviction when sufficiency if the evidence is the issue.]
Motion that Admitted Exhibits of Real Evidence Be Sent into the Jury Room Before Jurors Begin Their Deliberations Motion to Prevent (or Allow) the Jury from Having Access During Deliberations to Demonstrative Evidence Introduced

Solely to Assist the Fact-Finder in Understanding Witnesses' Testimony
Motion to Prevent the Court from Appointing a Jury Foreperson (1 - Horwitz, Mixed Signals and Subtle Cues: Jury Independence and Judicial Appointment of the Jury Foreperson, 54 Catholic Univ. Law Rev. 829 (2005))
Motion That the Court Refrain from Unduly Coercing the Jury to Reach a Verdict - Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445 (1965)
Motion to Sequester and Prevent Deliberating Jurors from Separating
Motion for Hearing on Whether the Court Should Allow Substitution of Alternate Juror After Deliberations Have Begun
Motion to Suspend Jury Deliberations Pending the Return of Temporarily Incapacitated Juror
Motion to Permit Reading of Certain Testimony in Response to the Jury's Request
Motion to Poll Jurors to Determine If They Are Hopelessly Deadlocked
Motion to Prevent the Court from Inquiring As to the Numerical Division of Jurors Who Have Been Unable to Agree Upon a Verdict
Motion to Prevent the Court from Suggesting to the Jury that the Court Will Keep the Jury Deliberating Until It Reaches a Verdict
Motion to Set Aside Verdict(s) of Conviction on the Ground that It (They) Is (Are) Inconsistent with Verdicts of Acquittal But see Yeager v. United States, __U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 2360 (2009)
Motion for Instructions to Jurors After the Verdict Motion By Defense Counsel for Leave to Interview Jurors After the Verdict
Motion to Prevent the Jurors from Talking to Representatives of the News Media Pending Retrial After a Mistrial Has Been Declared Due to a Hung Jury - See State v. Neulander, 801 A.2d 255 (NJ 2002), cert denied 123 S. Ct. 1281 (2003); ABA Standards Fair Trial & Free Press (1992).
Motion to Prevent the Sentencing Court from Relying on Any Sentencing Guideline Enhancement that Requires the Finding of a Fact Not Placed Before the Jury as an Element of the Offense -For those (not TX.) in sentencing guideline jurisdictions, Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), based on the Apprendi/Ring rule, suggests that a sentencing guideline enhancement, other than a recidivist, e.g. prior conviction, fact, that requires the finding of a fact not placed before the trial jury as an element of the offense for which the convicted defendant is being sentenced is violative of the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury, the right to due process of law, and, in jurisdictions, e.g., federal and TX., that provide for a right to indictment, the right to indictment by a grand jury. Motion to Prevent Sentence Based in Whole or Part on Evidence of Any Prior Conviction that Is Not Alleged in the Charging Instrument and Proved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - Shephard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005).

Pre Trial Motion Practice

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Pre Trial Motion Practice

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Pretrial Motion Practice In Criminal Cases