Motion 5-Bar Expert Testimony in Car Accident Case
Motion in Limine to Bar Testimony of Accident Reconstruction Expert
__________________, P.C., Attorneys for Defendant
NOW COMES the Defendant, SARAH K. NESTROCK, by and through her attorneys, __________________, P.C., and respectfully moves the Court to bar the testimony of Jimmy Lee, or any other accident reconstruction expert offered by the Prosecution herein, and in support thereof, states as follows:
1. The entitled Indictment charges the Defendant with offenses that allegedly arise out of a two car collision that allegedly occurred on September 25, 1996 at the intersection of 79th Street and Clarendon Hills Road in Willowbrook, Illinois.
2. The Prosecution has provided the Defense with the identity of Jimmy Lee as an expert automobile accident reconstruction expert along with his reports, Grand Jury testimony and Trial testimony in which Jimmy Lee rendered opinions relative to:
a) The manner in which the accident occurred;
b) The direction of travel and relative positions of the vehicles before, during and after the impact;
c) The relative speed of the Defendant's vehicle before, and at the time of the impact.
d) The “consciousness inputs” of the Defendant before and at the time of the collision.
e) The consciousness impact on the steering wheel of the Defendant of her automobile before and at the time of the impact.
Exhibit “A” is a transcript of Jimmy Lee's trial testimony.
3. Opinion testimony of an automobile accident reconstruction expert is inadmissible in this case because:
a) There was no dispute as to how the collision occurred including the direction and travel of the vehicles before, during and after the impact of the vehicles;
b) There were eye witnesses to the impact who can testify to the direction and travel of the vehicles before, during and after the impact.
c) There are numerous photographs, both still and video, of the scene of the collision, after the impact and before the vehicles had been removed which depict the scene and the general area.
4. The Prosecution also solicited opinions from the reconstruction expert, Jimmy Lee, as to matters for which an expert opinion is inadmissible and to matters which are beyond his area of expertise of an accident reconstruction expert, including:
a) Opinions relative to the consciousness of the Defendant before and during the collision;
b) Opinions as to the “conscious inputs” of the Defendant on the steering of her automobile as opined from the terrain transversed by the Defendant's vehicle before the collision.
5. The admission of the testimony of the automobile accident reconstruction expert as to the matters set forth above is in derogation of the law and should be excluded.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, SARAH K. NESTROCK, respectfully prays the Court to preclude the testimony of the Prosecution's automobile accident reconstruction expert, Jimmy Lee, as to his opinions concerning the direction and travel of the automobiles involved in the subject collision; the consciousness of the Defendant at and before the time of impact; the conscious inputs of the Defendant on the steering of her vehicle before and at the time of the impact and any other opinion testimony of Jimmy Lee concerning this case.