Uploaded February 2026 | Updated September 2026, 7 hours ago
Without a televised trial, it's really difficult to get a flavor of how the trial is proceeding. Trials build momentum. Chille mentioned that the judge's ruling really killed his case. I took a look at it. There were five motions to exclude - that's what a motion in limine does: excludes evidence. The defense had some success on the first two motions, and are able to try and again to exclude on motions 4 and 5 during the trial. A motion in limine ("MIL") can change the entire outcome of the case. The first two were only partially granted, and there is nothing I can review to tell me the extent of its exclusionary effects. MIL's are brought under the guise that the evidence wastes time, is irrelevant, is too prejudicial, or will confuse the jury. Usually, trial lawyers try to use them to keep a person from being able to present the case. If you violate the ruling, you can be held in contempt, or the judge could go so far as to declare a mistrial. Other times, the judge issues a "curative instruction" to try and restore things. The opposition to the five MIL's was only twelve pages, and I didn't think it was effective because it was too generic. Judges are also reluctant to just issue pre-trial orders that have such sweeping effects unless there is a really good reason to do it.
A large problem is that the proof needed for state and federal trials are different. The trial court convicted Chille, the state appellate court reversed it. The federal judge's opinion stated in his 51 page order that there was probable cause to arrest. This case is the perfect example of how you can get what looks to be inconsistent rulings.
I am not licensed in Nevada. None of this is legal advice, and cannot be relied upon. I am merely commenting on a matter of public interest. No attorney client relationship is formed. Always consult with a locally licensed professional with respect to your legal rights. All rights reserved.
Without a televised trial, it's really difficult to get a flavor of how the trial is proceeding. Trials build momentum. Chille mentioned that the judge's ruling really killed his case. I took a look at it. There were five motions to exclude - that's what a motion in limine does: excludes evidence. The defense had some success on the first two motions, and are able to try and again to exclude on motions 4 and 5 during the trial. A motion in limine ("MIL") can change the entire outcome of the case. The first two were only partially granted, and there is nothing I can review to tell me the extent of its exclusionary effects. MIL's are brought under the guise that the evidence wastes time, is irrelevant, is too prejudicial, or will confuse the jury. Usually, trial lawyers try to use them to keep a person from being able to present the case. If you violate the ruling, you can be held in contempt, or the judge could go so far as to declare a mistrial. Other times, the judge issues a "curative instruction" to try and restore things. The opposition to the five MIL's was only twelve pages, and I didn't think it was effective because it was too generic. Judges are also reluctant to just issue pre-trial orders that have such sweeping effects unless there is a really good reason to do it.
A large problem is that the proof needed for state and federal trials are different. The trial court convicted Chille, the state appellate court reversed it. The federal judge's opinion stated in his 51 page order that there was probable cause to arrest. This case is the perfect example of how you can get what looks to be inconsistent rulings.
I am not licensed in Nevada. None of this is legal advice, and cannot be relied upon. I am merely commenting on a matter of public interest. No attorney client relationship is formed. Always consult with a locally licensed professional with respect to your legal rights. All rights reserved.
