Opinion
1:14-cv-01735-SAB
09-08-2021
LESLIE LARAY CRAWFORD, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD and AARON STRINGER, Defendants.
ORDER ENTERING STIPULATION OF UNDISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES IN LIEU OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE
(ECF NO. 134)
A jury trial in this action is set for October 12, 2021. On August 31, 2021, the Court issued a pretrial order directing the parties to file motions in limine and to meet and confer to determine whether certain issues could be resolved without the need for adjudication by the Court. (ECF No. 133.) On September 8, 2021, the parties filed a stipulated agreement resolving certain issues raised by the parties' respective motions in limine. (ECF No. 134.) Through this order, the Court shall enter and approve the stipulation as to these undisputed evidentiary issues.
Accordingly, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. No Party shall make any reference to, introduce evidence of, or make any argument as to the Decedent's prior bad acts;
2. Assuming Michael Eugene Dozer does not testify, no Party shall make any reference to, introduce evidence of, or make any argument as to Michael Eugene Dozer's bad acts. Should he testify, then the issue will be addressed with the
Court;
3. All non-party witnesses shall be excluded from the courtroom during testimony;
4. No Party shall make any reference to, introduce evidence of, or make any argument relating to evidence gained from police databases from being used in jury research;
5. No Party shall make any reference to, introduce evidence of, or make any argument appealing to jurors' pecuniary interest as taxpayers or that a verdict in favor of Plaintiff will make their communities safer;
6. No Party shall make any reference to, introduce evidence of, or make any argument referencing the police report or portions of the police report that include hearsay;
7. No Party shall make any reference to, introduce evidence of, or make any argument that the City of Bakersfield is defendant/indemnifying Defendant Aaron Stringer;
8. No Party shall seek to introduce the following witnesses not previously disclosed: (1) Shane Griffith (Witness No. 29); (2) Michael Dozer (Witness No. 32); (3) Douglas Barrier (Witness No. 37); (4) Sean Sadler (Witness No. 38); (5) Janelle Costamagna (Witness No. 54); (6) Michelle Wilcox (Witness No. 55); (7) Dr. Howard Oliver (Witness No. 56); (8) Regina Mancera (Witness No. 57); and (9) Clark Daniels (Witness No. 60);
9. No Party shall seek to introduce the following evidence not previously disclosed: (1) Authorities Investigating Cop Involved in Fatal Shooting in Bakersfield, Calif News Article (Item No. 26); (2) Cop Once Hailed As A Hero Now Accused Of Tickling Dead Man's Toes News Article (Item No. 27); (3) Cop who Tickled Corpse Though Dead Bodies Were Hilarious, Trainee Says News Article (Item No. 28); (4) The Bakersfield California News Video of Incident (Item No. 29); (5) Police: Officer Shoots Man Who Tried Setting Woman On Fire News Article (Item No. 30); (6) Police Shoot, Kill Man Who Allegedly Tried To Set Woman
On Fire at Gas Station (Item No. 31); (7) Man Shot By Police had Prior Accusations of Disobeying Orders (Item No. 32); (8) Michael Dozer's California Affidavit of Collection of Estate Assets (Item No. 34); (9) Michael Dozer's Bank Statements (Item No. 35); (10) Michael Dozer's Prescriptions (Item No. 36) other than those reflected in the Kern County Medical Records which are the subject of Defendants' Motion in Limine; and (11) Hospital Bracelet for Leslie Crawford (Item No. 63);
10. No Party shall make any reference to, introduce evidence of, or make any argument relating to Damacio Diaz and/or Patrick Mara unless either testifies;
11. No Party shall make any reference to, introduce evidence of, or make any argument relating to past medical expenses;
12. No Party shall make any reference to, introduce evidence of, or make any argument relating to the Golden Rule;
13. No Party shall make any reference to or introduce evidence of the verdict from the prior trial, the subsequent appeal to the Ninth Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit's Opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.