MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Motions in limine or pre-trial motions were presented in court by the GG26 defense and SF DA prosecution seeking the exclusion of specific evidence or arguments from being presented in front of the jury during the upcoming trial. Judge Caffese held the decision of granting or denying a motion, in full or in part, or deferring judgement to a later date. It is generally understood that decisions on motions in limine are tentative, with Judge Caffese reserving power to change her mind depending on what is revealed through the course of the trial proceedings. The purpose of a motion in limine is to address potentially prejudicial, irrelevant, or inadmissible information that could unduly influence a jury or hinder the fair administration of justice. A range of motions were heard, most notable amongst which are discussed here.
Key motions introduced by the prosecution:
The prosecution introduced multiple motions to limit any utterance of the genocide in Gaza, solidarity with Palestine, and against brutal colonial occupations in an attempt to prevent the jury from considering as part of the evidence the intent and beliefs behind the defendants actions on Tax Day 2024. Further on in the trial we will see the prosecution's entire case is focused primarily on the approximately 4 hours on the bridge. The prosecution’s case exists in a vacuum, unable to acknowledge the carnage caused by our silence and indifference.
Judge Caffese ruled against the prosecution’s attempts to sanitize the trial. The prosecution introduced a motion seeking to exclude the word “genocide” from all evidence in the jury trial. Judge Caffese denied this motion. Another motion introduced by the prosecution sought to prohibit defense attorneys and spectators from wearing keffiyehs in court. Judge Caffese denied this portion of the motion but ordered all members attending court for the jury trial to refrain from wearing clothing with “political messaging” and other conduct that may be potentially “prejudicial” to the jury. A third motion introduced by the prosecution sought to exclude all evidence related to the defendant’s motives, also denied by the judge.
The prosecution introduced a motion to exclude all experts the defense sought to testify in front of the jury to present a comprehensive account of the defendant’s intent in partaking in the act of civil disobedience. These witnesses would testify to a range of topics including the dire medical catastrophe and unimaginable human suffering inflicted in the genocide and blockade in Gaza, the truth about the U.S. violating its own laws in funding and arming the genocide in Gaza, and the efficacy of civil disobedience in moving the needle of justice. This prosecution motion ushered in arguments and discussions on the defense’s motion to instruct the jury on the necessity defense and admissibility of nine defense expert witnesses. Judge Caffese initially indicated she may allow at least one expert to testify but later granted the prosecution's motion to exclude all experts, with the caveat that foundation for bringing in the experts could be laid by way of the defendant’s own testimonies.
Key motions introduced by the defense:
The defense introduced motions to protect the rights of the defendants against government overreach associated with broad searches and seizures in the GG26 case.
At the time of the initial arrest, law-enforcement had confiscated the defendant’s phones and searched them over a three month period. No useful evidence was found, however the government learned that the defendants were using the widely-used encrypted messaging applications, Signal and WhatsApp. Assistant District Attorney Roze revealed during arguments that she intended to tell the jury that the use of encrypted messaging apps by the defendants is circumstantial evidence that defendants intended to plan something unlawful. The defense introduced a motion requesting that the prosecution not be permitted to mention that cellphones were taken and searched, given the prosecution’s specific intent. People have a right to privacy, and merely using encrypted apps should not be allowed to be used as evidence that someone is engaging in criminal activity. This motion was denied by Judge Caffese.
The defense introduced another motion to quash evidence obtained from an over-broad Meta warrant from March 2026. The warrant from the government requested a broad range of data on all 7 defendants from Meta, including private messages, follower identities, linked credit cards, and bluetooth information. The warrant also opened the doors to this information being shared with numerous law enforcement agencies across the Bay Area. While Judge Caffese was surprised at the government issuing a search warrant 2 years after the action, she denied this motion, indicating that searching through potentially relevant data was part of an investigator’s job. Relatedly, Judge Caffese denied the prosecution’s motion to admit evidence where a defendant “liked” a post on Instagram that recommended protestors not interact with law-enforcement. The prosecution intended to use this information to show the defendant’s “criminal intent”.
Judge Caffese denied the defense’s motion to exclude evidence associated with two previous direct actions, one at Lockheed Martin earlier in April 2024, and another on the Golden Gate Bridge in February 14th, 2024, both acts of civil disobedience against the US aiding and arming of the genocide in Gaza. Judge Caffese ruled that this evidence could be presented in front of the jury if sufficient foundation was laid by the prosecution.