Having said that, the Court of Appeals got one wrong this week in Wright v. Royal Carpet Services, and Philip Thomas (who has been doing a bang-up job recently, by the way) explains how with detail that would render my own analysis superfluous at best. In a nutshell, the Court held that when a party loses a motion in limine, he cannot be the first to refer to that evidence at trial, or else he waives his right to appeal the decision on the motion.

To put it in baseball terms (the Braves play their first spring training game on Tuesday, you know), it's the legal equivalent of being called out after getting hit by a pitch and rubbing the bruise on your way to first base.

As Philip points out, there's a wealth of Supreme Court authority that contradicts that conclusion, and Judge Maxwell's separate outlines it persuasively.

But nearly as importantly, the decision demonstrates a troubling but apparent disconnect between the concurring members and the real-world practicalities of trying a case. A basic tenet of trial strategy is that, when faced with a piece of unfavorable evidence, one should be the first to show it to the jury in order to dull its effects -- or, as it's often described, to "take the sting out." The majority's inability to recognize this seems slightly out of touch, and that's to say nothing of the authority in conflict with their holding.

Perhaps it's not surprising, then, to see that Judge Maxwell -- the newest member of the Court and recently a practicing federal prosecutor -- led the charge for the judges who disagreed.

Ultimately, though, it may be much ado about nothing, because technically speaking, I'm not sure that the decision creates binding precedent. The Court's opinion drew only five votes -- not a majority of the Court -- and one of its members, Judge Irving, joined in result only. Judge Maxwell's separate opinion, on the other hand, pulled a total of five full votes (why that doesn't make it the "majority" opinion, I don't know). Suffice it to say, though, that a majority of Court's members declined to concur in the lead opinion's reasoning.

But even if the decision stands as authority, it's an outlier at best in the realm of evidence-based appeals. Still, I hope this is one that the Mississippi Supreme Court will spend a few minutes cleaning up.