against Stadfeld. Their theory was that the coconspirators had a motive to lie to deflect attention away from themselves in the John Doe. Before addressing the merits of this argument, we note first that the government maintains that Stadfeld waived any objection to the court’s ruling excluding this evidence. That is incorrect. Near the end of the final pretrial hearing, after the court had denied the motion to admit evidence of the John Doe, Stadfeld’s attorney asked the court for permission to refer to “another investigation” when questioning the witnesses. The court agreed. This was not a waiver, as the government contends, but merely an adaptation to an adverse evidentiary ruling made by the district court. Cf. Wilson v. Williams, 182 F.3d 562, 564 (7th Cir.1999) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). On the merits, however, the district court’s
holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered holding admonishment not mistrial appropriate where police officer made statement in violation of ruling on motion in limine holding that adaptation to adverse ruling on motion in limine did not waive established objection holding that a definitive ruling in limine preserves an issue for appellate review without the need for later objection holding that trial courts have discretion to decide whether litigation conduct violates a ruling on a motion in limine