Opinion
Case No. 2:99-CV-111
July 2, 2002
OPINION AND ORDER
The Court conducted a Final Pretrial Conference in the instant action on May 3, 2002. The Court restates its rulings on the motions in limine, seriatim.
I.
Defendant's Motions in limine (Doc. #41)
The Defendant moves to preclude Plaintiff from introducing evidence, testimony or making statements regarding the following: (1) information contained in Defendant's personnel, hiring, training and internal affairs files, including but not limited to, self-reported uses of force/mace or other incidents, citizen complaints, internal affairs investigations, disciplinary matters in prior employment and other lawsuits; (2) the pending Department of Justice lawsuit against the City of Columbus; (3) Plaintiffs claims that she was denied medical treatment, that she was mistreated or that she had medical problems separate from her injured thumb; (4) Plaintiffs rationale for her guilty plea in the criminal case stemming from the incident of alleged excessive force; (5) newspaper articles regarding the City of Columbus or Chief Jackson; (6) Officer Best's alleged failure to provide a statement regarding the incident of alleged excessive force to the Internal Affairs Bureau; and (7) testimony from any expert witness of Plaintiff.
Plaintiff states that she does not intend to offer evidence regarding information contained in Defendant's personnel, hiring, training and internal affairs files. Consequently, this portion of Defendant's motion in limine is denied as moot. In the event that Plaintiff perceives the evidence at trial would permit introduction of such matters, Plaintiffs counsel shall first consult with the Court as to the admissibility of such evidence by requesting a sidebar conference.
The Court concludes that any evidence pertaining to the Justice Department lawsuit shall be excluded. The Court will raise the issue of the pending suit during voir dire and counsel may make further inquiry of the venire if appropriate. Defendant's motion to exclude evidence of the lawsuit during the Plaintiffs case-in-chief is granted.
Any evidence that Plaintiff was denied medical care following the alleged incident of excessive force is preliminary excluded since it is undisputed that Plaintiff presents no constitutional claim for denial of medical care and since Defendant Best was not present with Plaintiff when she was transported from Banana Joe's. With respect to Plaintiffs anticipated claim that her asthma attack was causally linked to the alleged excessive force, before presenting any evidence on the issue, Plaintiff shall first consult with the Court at sidebar as to the admissibility of the evidence. Defendant's motion in limine on the issue of medical care is preliminarily granted.
Defendant moves to preclude Plaintiff from testifying as to her rationale for entering a guilty plea to the criminal charges stemming from the incident giving rise to this case. Defendant does, however, anticipate introducing evidence of the plea and asking Plaintiff limited questions regarding the plea and her pre-arrest conduct which led to the criminal charge. Plaintiff argues that if the plea is admitted, then she should be permitted to testify as to her motivations for entering the plea.
Plaintiff pled guilty to persistent disorderly conduct and received a thirty-day suspended jail sentence. Plaintiff claims in this case that she entered into the plea because she perceived that she was the subject of racial bias by the state court and because her attorney allegedly coerced her to enter the plea.
In Greene v. Distelhorst, No. 96-3044, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 15461 (6th Cir. June 23, 1997), the Sixth Circuit considered whether criminal activity which led to Plaintiffs claim of excessive force was an "other crime" for purposes of Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), which states:
(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge identity or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during the trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.
The Court held that evidence of the activity was "part and parcel of the arrest of which [Plaintiff] now complains, not "other crimes" unrelated in time and place. Evidence of this activity, except for the fact of conviction, hardly could have been excluded without denying these defendants the right to present their defense." Id. at *8. Thus, the Court concluded that evidence of the circumstances leading to the arrest was admissible to provide the jury with a full account of the events giving rise to the claim of excessive force. Further, the Court found that the prejudicial effect of such evidence did not outweigh the probative value.
Similarly, in this case, the Court concludes that the events which led to Plaintiffs arrest at Banana Joe's is not an "other crime" for purposes of Rule 404(b). Further, Plaintiffs plea does not run contrary to Fed.R.Evid. 410 since Plaintiff is not defending this case. In addition, the Court finds that Plaintiffs pre-arrest conduct, i.e., that Plaintiff appeared intoxicated out of control and violent with Officer Best, is clearly probative of the issue in this case — whether Defendant used excessive force against Plaintiff. The probative value of such evidence is not substantially outweighed by any prejudicial effect associated therewith. Fed.R.Evid. 403.
The Court will permit the jury to hear evidence of the pre-arrest events, as described by Defendant Best, in.order to properly evaluate Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. In addition, the Defendant may inquire as to whether Plaintiff pleaded guilty to persistent disorderly conduct. However, any evidence regarding Plaintiffs rationale for the plea will not be permitted during the presentations of the case-in-chief. The Court will resolve the matter outside the presence of the jury prior to the presentation of any rebuttal evidence by Plaintiff. The Defendant's motion in limine is granted.
The remaining matters raised by the Defendant in limine, are rendered moot. Plaintiff states that she does not intend to present evidence regarding newspaper articles, or the Defendant's failure to give a statement regarding the incident to the Internal Affairs Bureau. Finally, Plaintiff does not intend to present expert testimony as to her injuries.
Plaintiffs Motions in limine (Doc. #43, #44)
Plaintiff moves to exclude evidence of her disorderly conduct conviction as well as evidence of the events of her pre-arrest conduct forming the basis of this action.
For the reasons stated supra, the Plaintiffs motions are denied. The Court will, however, consider the admissibility of evidence of Plaintiffs rationale for the guilty plea prior to any rebuttal evidence that may be presented by Plaintiff.
II.
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's Motion in limine (Doc. #41) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs Motions in limine (Doc. #43, #44) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.