I remember years ago trying a case against a well-known lawyer in Nashville (who is still practicing, by the way.) I moved in limine to prevent certain testimony from being introduced into evidence; my motion was granted.
Later that day I saw the witness in the hallway who would have been in the position to offer the excluded testimony. I asked the witness if he had been informed about the ruling. He said that he had been told by my opponent that he (the lawyer) could not ask him (the witness) a question about the matter that was excluded but he (the witness) could volunteer it.
Here is a case from Florida that explains is simple terms the obligation of a lawyer who knows that a witness has testimony that has been ruled inadmissible.
“Second, the prosecutor did not bother to explain the pre-trial ruling to the witness before calling him. Instead, the prosecutor explained that he trusted law enforcement witnesses to confine their answers to the questions asked so that he could avoid the improper testimony by simply avoiding any question that would directly call for an answer including the barred evidence. Obviously, this approach did not work. The prosecutor is cautioned that professionalism demands that he review matters barred from evidence by court order with any affected witness before calling that witness to the stand.”
As if any lawyer with any knowledge of the law or any sense of professionalism needs to be told this ….
The case is Florida v. Santiago, CASE NO. 5D05-2162 (Florida D.C. App., 5th Dis., May 5, 2006). See the opinion here.
Thanks to Matt at Abstract Appeal for the heads-up on the decision.