Summary
allowing the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff regarding his "alleged attempts to suborn perjury"
Summary of this case from United States v. WaliaOpinion
No. 96 Civ. 2002
June 5, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude defendants from introducing at trial six categories of evidence. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion is hereby DENIED.
1. Witness Tampering
Plaintiff first seeks to preclude defendants from introducing evidence that plaintiff tampered with a witness in his criminal case, arguing that such evidence is impermissible prior bad acts evidence. Rule 608(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, however, entitles defendants to cross-examine plaintiff about whether he attempted to tamper with a witness's testimony, because such allegations plainly are probative of plaintiff's credibility.
More fundamentally, defendants are entitled to introduce evidence of plaintiff's alleged witness tampering simply to explain to the jury why they needed to interview plaintiff in the first place. Plaintiff, after all, alleges in this lawsuit that defendants lured him into a room masquerading as Legal Aid lawyers and proceeded to beat him without justification. In light of plaintiff's allegations, the circumstances surrounding why defendants came to visit plaintiff on the day in question are central to this case. Plaintiff cannot use Rules 403 and 608 as a shield to prevent defendants from explaining to the jury that they had a legitimate reason for interviewing plaintiff on the day in question.
Because Rule 608(b) prohibits defendants from proving prior bad acts through extrinsic evidence, and because defendants' need to explain to the jury why they were called upon to interview plaintiff is relatively limited and subject to the outer limits of Rule 403, the court will not permit defendants to introduce documentary evidence of plaintiff's alleged witness tampering. Defendants will be permitted, however, to offer anecdotal testimony about how the witness tampering allegations brought plaintiff and defendants together on the day in question, and defendants will be given broad latitude to cross-examine plaintiff about the witness tampering allegations if he chooses to testify.
2. Prior Convictions
Plaintiff seeks to preclude the introduction of evidence relating to his prior criminal history, other than evidence eliciting the crimes, courts, dates of conviction, and sentences. Although Rule 609 places such limits on the extent to which evidence of prior convictions can be introduced to impeach a witness, here defendants seek to introduce such evidence not only to impeach plaintiff but also to demonstrate that his alleged emotional injuries were caused by a preexisting personality disorder, not by any alleged beating by defendants. Importantly, it was plaintiff who put his own emotional condition at issue in this case by alleging emotional injury, and defendants have every right to seek to demonstrate, through their expert, that plaintiff's emotional problems flow from a preexisting emotional disorder that has manifested itself through his prior criminal conduct.
3. 1997 Suicide Attempt
Plaintiff seeks to preclude evidence that he attempted suicide again in 1997. However, such evidence undoubtedly is probative, at a minimum, of whether plaintiff's October 1995 suicide attempt was caused by defendants' alleged conduct. If plaintiff regularly attempts suicide, it is less likely that his October 1995 attempt was caused by defendants' alleged conduct than if that attempt had been an isolated occurrence.
4. Prior Bad Acts
Plaintiff next argues, in very general terms, that defendants' expert psychologist should be precluded from introducing evidence of plaintiff's prior bad acts. As previously discussed, however, plaintiff chose to make his emotional condition a central issue in this case, and defendants are entitled to explore the extent to which plaintiff's alleged emotional injuries flow from the incident in question or from some other source. Defendants' expert psychologist therefore will be permitted to offer his opinion that plaintiff's prior bad acts demonstrate the existence of a preexisting emotional disorder that caused the emotional injuries plaintiff complains about in this case.
5. Purpose of Defendants' Visit
Plaintiff also argues that defendants should be limited, with respect to explaining the purpose of their visit to plaintiff, to offering testimony that they were investigating the conduct of a prison chaplain. As discussed above, however, defendants are entitled to explain to the jury precisely why they were required to visit plaintiff on the day in question. Precluding defendants' ability to explain the purpose of their visit would cause far more prejudice to their defense than allowing such testimony will cause to plaintiff's case.
6. Suborning Perjury
Finally, plaintiff seeks to preclude evidence that he attempted to suborn perjury by seeking to induce Clarence Williams to recant truthful testimony. As discussed previously, Rule 608(b) is clear that defendants may not introduce extrinsic evidence on this topic, i.e., defendants may not introduce into evidence the affidavit that plaintiff allegedly attempted to have Williams sign. Defendants certainly will be permitted, however, to cross-examine plaintiff about his alleged attempts to suborn perjury.
CONCLUSION
In a criminal trial, it is incumbent upon a court to preclude the introduction of evidence that might lead a jury to convict a defendant not for the conduct with which he is charged, but rather because of similar acts he may have done in the past. This, however, is not a criminal trial, and nobody in this proceeding is accusing plaintiff of having done anything. To the contrary, it is plaintiff who is accusing defendants of having acted wrongfully, and it is plaintiff who seeks to have the jury award him substantial damages because of defendants' conduct. Although plaintiff's case may well be somewhat prejudiced by the introduction of the kinds of evidence he seeks to preclude, such evidence is vital to defendants' ability to rebut the very serious charges plaintiff has lodged. For these reasons, plaintiff's motion in limine is hereby DENIED.