RA - XXXVI lines 173/74
In hoc templum senātus eō diē (abl.) convēnit, quō Cicerō cōnsul (appos.) ōrātiōne clārissimā habitā (abl.) Catilīnam (acc.) . . .
Since Catilīnam is Acc. I assume there is an implied “in” = against after habitā.
Correct?
Well, could you post the rest of the sentence? It could be that something else is governing the accusative.
In hoc templum senātus eō diē (abl.) convēnit, quō Cicerō cōnsul (appos.) ōrātiōne clārissimā habitā (abl.) Catilīnam, hostem patriae, ē senātū atque ex urbe expulit.
Ah, much better. ōrātiōne clārissimā habitā is an ablative absolute, and does not take a direct object, and no implied “in.” Catlīnam is the object of expulit, with hostem in apposition.
So I was wrong - glad I queried that. I suppose I should have remembered about abl.abs and no direct object. 
Multas gratias tibi ago!