DANIELS v. MITCHELL, 13-cv-0609-SCW. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20160111671
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2016
Summary: ORDER STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS , Magistrate Judge . On January 8, 2016, a motion hearing was held in the above-captioned case. Appearing at the hearing: Jeremiah Nixon and Brian Lamping for Plaintiff, and Dylan Grady and Chris Higgerson for Defendants. This order summarizes the hearing, as well as the Court's ruling on the motions in limine. More detailed reasons for the rulings can be found on the hearing transcript. Parties shall submit a clean exhibit list by the end of the day on January 8,
Summary: ORDER STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS , Magistrate Judge . On January 8, 2016, a motion hearing was held in the above-captioned case. Appearing at the hearing: Jeremiah Nixon and Brian Lamping for Plaintiff, and Dylan Grady and Chris Higgerson for Defendants. This order summarizes the hearing, as well as the Court's ruling on the motions in limine. More detailed reasons for the rulings can be found on the hearing transcript. Parties shall submit a clean exhibit list by the end of the day on January 8, ..
More
ORDER
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge.
On January 8, 2016, a motion hearing was held in the above-captioned case. Appearing at the hearing: Jeremiah Nixon and Brian Lamping for Plaintiff, and Dylan Grady and Chris Higgerson for Defendants. This order summarizes the hearing, as well as the Court's ruling on the motions in limine. More detailed reasons for the rulings can be found on the hearing transcript. Parties shall submit a clean exhibit list by the end of the day on January 8, 2016. The Court also declines to permit Plaintiff's counsel to narrate medical records, although counsel may certainly ask Plaintiff about the medical records. Plaintiff may also submit his own verdict director prior to the jury instruction conference on January 11, 2016.
The Court ruled on the following motions in limine:
Plaintiff's Motion Issue #1 (Doc. 58) — Granted in part and denied in part.
The fact of and date of Plaintiff's felony convictions within the relevant time frame are admissible. The law establishes that the fact of a felony conviction goes to a witnesses' credibility pursuant to FRE 609. However, the Court finds that the name of these convictions, murder, to be highly prejudicial, and that the prejudice outweighs any probative value under FRE 403. Defendants may question Plaintiff on whether he has felony convictions, elicit the number of felony convictions, and the date, but not the name of the convictions. There is no objection to keeping out evidence of Plaintiff's discipline.
Plaintiff's Motion Issue #2 (Doc. 58) — Granted. Defense has no objection
Plaintiff's Motion Issue #3 (Doc. 58) — Granted. Defense has no objection
Plaintiff's Motion Issue #4 (Doc. 58) — Granted. Defense has no objection
Defendants Motion Issue #1 (Doc. 57) — Granted
Plaintiff has no objection
Defendants Motion Issue #2 (Doc. 57) — Granted
Plaintiff has no objection
Defendants Motion Issue #3 (Doc. 57) — Granted
Plaintiff has no objection
Defendants Motion Issue #4 (Doc.57) — Granted
Plaintiff has no objection
Defendants Motion Issue #5 (Doc. 57) — Granted, without prejudice
Plaintiff has preserved the issue
Defendants Motion Issue #6 (Doc. 57) — Granted
Plaintiff has preserved the issue
Defendants Motion Issue #7 (Doc. 57) — Ruling Reserved
Defendants have argued the handwritten copies of Plaintiff's letters cannot be permitted pursuant to FRE 1001 because they are not a true copy. However, FRE 1004 permits evidence relating to the contents of evidence not otherwise available. The Court does not have the letters currently, and cannot rule on this issue without testimony from the Plaintiff. The Court accepts Plaintiff's representation that the evidence is not to prove the truth of the matter in the letters, but to show that a given Defendant was put on notice of these issues. The evidence may be admissible for the purpose of notice, if Plaintiff meets one of the requirements of FRE 1004 and the evidence is reliable enough to persuade the jury that it is not a fabrication.
Defendants Motion Issue #8 (Doc. 58) — Denied
Plaintiff wishes to introduce this evidence to show that the shank took a lot of effort to procure, to prove that the attack was premediated. The picture of the shank does not confuse the issue nor is it unduly prejudicial. It would be helpful for the jury to understand the chain of events at issue. It is relevant to issues present in the case. The Court declines to allow the evidence only for impeachment. The exhibit will be admissible.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
