As I announced in your syllabus, I require each student to submit a practical project that accounts for ten percent (10%) of your testing score for this course. The project is judged on a pass/fail basis.
Each student will work individually, although I have assigned you a role to play as indicated in the list attached hereto. You are allowed to discuss the problem with your classmates.
Your assignment is to write a motion in limine, based on the fact-pattern that follows. Half of the class will act as Plaintiff Paula Corbin Jone's counsel and the other half as Defendant William Jefferson Clinton's counsel. Plaintiff is seeking admissibility of certain evidence and Defendant opposes admission of the proffered evidence. Your motion must adequately represent your client's interests and make reference to the pertinent Federal Rules of Evidence, cases and other materials included in your casebook and Rules supplement (you are allowed to extend your research beyond these resources, but it is not required).
I have attached hereto the complaint in the Jones v. Clinton litigation, edited to eliminate material that is not pertinent herein. The complaint naturally determines the possible evidential hypos that can be argued for or against admissibility in this situation. I also recommend that you review Judge Susan W. Wright's Memorandum and Order in Jones v. Clinton, 993 F. Supp. 1217; 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2923; 76 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (Bna) 430; 49 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 432. This opinion discusses many of the evidentiary issues raised by this problem.
DUE DATE: Projects are due on or before 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 26, 2003. You may turn them in to me during class, or to my secretary, Ms. Betty Donaldson in the secretarial pool office.
FACTS:
For purposes of this project, you should assume that the Jones v. Clinton complaint was not settled (as in fact it was). Plaintiff Paula Corbin Jones is planning to go to trial on her complaint and the trial is scheduled to start on Monday, May 5, 2003.
Part of the evidence that Plaintiff Jones intends to offer at trial regards what she characterizes as a series of alleged encounters and intimate relationships between the Defendant William Jefferson Clinton and women at his place of work. Jones argues in part that these facts, if allowed into evidence, will establish a pattern of sexual harassment conduct that is admissible pursuant to FRE 415 or, alternately, pursuant to FRE 404(b) and perhaps FRE 608.
Specifically, Plaintiff would like to offer the following:
1. The testimony of Ms. Monica Lewinsky that she engaged in a sexual relationship with the President of the United States while she was employed as an intern at the White house. The relationship lasted several months. Sexual contact between her and the President occurred in a bathroom adjacent to the Oval Office in the White House on several occasions. She would also testify that she and the President engaged in "phone sex." (You may assume that this witness would so testify either at trial or at an evidentiary hearing on this matter).
2. The testimony of Ms. Kathleen Willey that, while she was working as a volunteer at the White House in 1993, she was invited into the Oval Office; there, she was accosted by President Clinton and was the object of unwanted sexual advances and sexual touching on that occasion. (You may assume that this witness would so testify either at trial or at an evidentiary hearing on this matter).
3. If not allowed to present the testimony, Plaintiff Jones would nonetheless request that her counsel be allowed to refer to these incidents during the cross-examination of Defendant Clinton.
Defendant William Jefferson Clinton indicates that this evidence is irrelevant or at best collateral as to any issue to be tried. He argues further that even if relevant the allegations are unfairly prejudicial "bad acts" intended as impermissible character attacks. The defendant objects to the proposed cross-examination use of the evidence as well. Clinton has admitted to having "an inappropriate relationship" with Ms. Lewinsky but has denied Ms. Willey's allegations. Mr. Clinton further denies the plaintiff's allegations regarding the May 8, 1991, incident at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas. He is expected to testify at trial or at an evidentiary hearing consistent with these prior statements.
During the final pretrial conference, the presiding judge, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, instructs the parties to file motions in limine favoring and opposing the admission of this evidence. The motions should refer to the pertinent Federal Rules of Evidence and applicable Advisory Committee Notes, Legislative History, Cases, Academic Commentaries, etc. (you may limit your research to our class materials, although you are allowed to do as much research as you deem appropriate).
[I do not post the list to the website because I am concerned about student privacy.]