Opinion
18-CV-1377
12-07-2021
STANLEY BOWENS, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL J. BOMBARDIER, MERIT J. PECK, GREGORY ARCHER, ERIC S. TAFT, CHRISTOPHER NICHOLS, MATTHEW A. LAFOUNTAIN and JACOB GARROW, Defendants.
STOLL, GLICKMAN & BELLINA, LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff HON. LETITIA A. JAMES, New York State Attorney General, Attorneys for Defendants, The Capitol. LEO GLICKMAN, ESQ. MICHAEL McCARTIN, ESQ., Ass't Attorney General. STACEY HAMILTON, ESQ., Ass't Attorney General.
APPEARANCES:
STOLL, GLICKMAN & BELLINA, LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff
HON. LETITIA A. JAMES, New York State Attorney General, Attorneys for Defendants, The Capitol.
OF COUNSEL:
LEO GLICKMAN, ESQ.
MICHAEL McCARTIN, ESQ., Ass't Attorney General.
STACEY HAMILTON, ESQ., Ass't Attorney General.
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge.
This case is set for a jury trial on Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. in Utica, New York. As part of their pre-trial briefing, the parties have moved in limine for pre-trial rulings on the admissibility of certain anticipated evidence or argument. Dkt. Nos. 56, 64.
A motion in limine is a motion made “on or at the threshold.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). “The term is used in the broad sense to refer to any motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.” Walker v. Schult, 365 F.Supp.3d 266, 275 (N.D.N.Y. 2019) (cleaned up).
The purpose of an in limine motion is to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.” SLSJ, LLC v. Kleban, 277 F.Supp.3d 258, 263 (D. Conn. 2017) (cleaned up). “Motions in limine may be directed toward barring specified evidence or argument and may be based on any of the grounds available under the Federal Rules of Evidence.” 3 Moore's Federal Practice § 16.77(4)(d)(ii).
“Evidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Walker, 365 F.Supp.3d at 275 (cleaned up). “The movant has the burden of establishing that the evidence is not admissible for any purpose.” Id. Of course, “[t]he trial judge may reserve judgment on a motion in limine until trial to ensure the motion is considered in the proper factual context.” Id. And finally, “[t]he court's ruling regarding a motion in limine is subject to change when the case unfolds.” Id.
Upon review of the parties' briefing in light of the governing evidentiary standards, it is
ORDERED that
The parties' motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1. Plaintiff's request to appear before the jury in civilian attire and without handcuffs or other restraints during the trial is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff's request to be escorted into and out of the courtroom outside the presence of the jury is GRANTED;
3. Evidence or testimony concerning the nature and details of plaintiff's prior convictions is PRECLUDED, including for impeachment purposes, though the jury may be advised that he is a convicted felon serving a lengthy prison term;
4. Evidence or testimony concerning plaintiff's disciplinary history in prison is PRECLUDED, except to the extent that it concerns any prior acts involving a defendant;
5. The evidence or testimony outlined in Point B of defendants' motion in limine (Dkt. 56) is PRECLUDED;
IT IS SO ORDERED.