Summary
noting that admission of plaintiff's prior convictions for rape and murder "must be pursuant to Rule 609, which make such admission subject to Rule 403"
Summary of this case from Maize v. Nassau Health Care Corp.Opinion
No. 00 Civ. 1302 (LTS)(HBP)
December 1, 2003
ORDER
The Court makes the following determinations concerning Plaintiffs and Defendants' respective motions in limine:
Plaintiffs Motion In Limine
1. Plaintiff seeks to preclude the introduction into evidence of a letter, purportedly found in Plaintiffs cell a few days before the incident at issue in this case, which appears to indicate that Plaintiff was planning to smuggle drugs into the institution in cooperation with his brother for the purpose of selling them, and which also includes a reference to another inmate's recovery of damages in a lawsuit against the "police." Defendants argue that the letter is properly admissible to show Defendants' reasons for observing Plaintiffs cell, entering it and conducting the subsequent strip search, as well as to show that Plaintiff had a financial motive in charging that he was assaulted. Plaintiff argues that it is irrelevant on the first point because the dispute is as to whether Plaintiff was beaten when the cell was injured. He asserts that he is not challenging the observation or the subsequent strip search.
In that Plaintiff is, in essence, charging Defendants with arbitrary, irrational and violent conduct in connection with their entry into his cell, Defendants' explanation of their reasons for attention to Plaintiff and entry into his cell is relevant to the factfinder's evaluation of their conduct. Therefore, in the absence of a stipulation concerning Defendants' reasons for observing Plaintiffs cell, entering that cell and searching him, Plaintiffs application is denied and Defendants will be permitted to offer the portions of the letter relating to drug smuggling activity (subject to the tender of admissible evidence of the authenticity of the letter and its connection to Plaintiff). The probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by any risk of unfair prejudice. The Court will give an appropriate limiting instruction upon timely request.
Plaintiffs application is, however, granted as to the portion of the letter referring to the other inmate's damages award. The document refers to the award as a resource for buying drugs from Plaintiff, not to litigation as a source of wealth in general. Its relevance being tenuous at best, the Court finds that any such relevance is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Plaintiff.
2. None of Plaintiffs prior convictions is for a type of crime described in Rule 609(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Accordingly, any admission of the convictions for purposes of attacking Plaintiffs credibility must be pursuant to Rule 609(a)(1), which make such admission subject to Rule 403. The Court finds that the probative value of the details of Plaintiff's prior convictions is substantially outweighed with respect to the issue of credibility by the potential for unfair prejudice to Plaintiff arising from jury attention to the details of his criminal history, which includes attempted murder and statutory rape. Accordingly, Defendants will be permitted to introduce for impeachment purposes evidence of the number and timing of Plaintiff's prior felony convictions, but not the specific crimes of which he has been convicted.
3. Plaintiffs request for preclusion of evidence of the prior criminal convictions of Plaintiffs witnesses Sims and Whittington is denied without prejudice, in anticipation of the submission of a defense motion accompanied by information as to the nature of those convictions.
4. Plaintiffs claims as to emotional injuries, including fear of correction officers, arising from this incident put in issue the causation of those alleged injuries. Defendants will accordingly be permitted to inquire into and introduce records regarding Plaintiffs history of incidents involving correction officers. Absent the need to rebut a claim that Plaintiff has no history of disciplinary sanctions at the institution, however, Defendants will not be permitted to introduce evidence as to the specifics or outcome of disciplinary charges lodged against Plaintiff, as the probative value of such evidence absent those circumstances would be outweighed substantially by the risk of unfair prejudice to Plaintiff.
5. Plaintiffs request for preclusion of any evidence of Plaintiffs prior 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuits is granted in part. Plaintiff is seeking to recover damages for alleged physical injuries. Defendants assert, and Plaintiff does not dispute, that he has claimed similar physical injuries in other section 1983 litigation arising from other alleged incidents. According to Defendants, Plaintiff has given sworn testimony in such other cases in which he claims that the injuries he now claims arose from other incidents. Such prior claims and testimony are clearly relevant to Plaintiffs damages claims; Plaintiffs application to preclude use of this material, insofar as it describes claimed injuries or incidents in which such injuries were allegedly suffered, is denied. Defendant has not, however, demonstrated the probative value in this litigation of evidence of the number or outcome of the prior lawsuits. Plaintiffs motion is granted to the extent it seeks to preclude the introduction of evidence of the number or outcome of Plaintiff's prior lawsuits.
Plaintiffs Supplemental Motion In Limine
6. In what Plaintiff styles as a supplemental motion in limine. Plaintiff seeks preclusion of the testimony of Nelson Muthra and Patricia Conklin. Plaintiffs application is denied. The proffered testimony is relevant to Plaintiffs claims concerning any efforts to obtain treatment for his alleged injuries. Defendant represents that these witnesses have personal knowledge of the procedures for recording SHU inmates' requests for treatment, that they were present in the unit at relevant times and that they are persons to whom treatment requests would have been directed. Their testimony as to lack of records of treatment requests and lack of recollection of any such requests is relevant to the questions of whether Plaintiff suffered injuries and the severity of any injuries he might have suffered.
Defendants' Motion In Limine
7. Defendants seek permission to introduce the letter allegedly found in Plaintiffs cell. The letter may be used to the extent, and under the circumstances, described in the Court's ruling in paragraph 1 above.
8. Defendants' application to introduce evidence relating to Plaintiffs prior section 1983 litigation is granted to the extent that use of such evidence will be permitted as set forth in paragraph 5 above.
9. Defendants' application to introduce evidence of Plaintiff's prior disciplinary proceedings is granted to the extent that use of such evidence will be permitted as set forth in paragraph 4 above.
10. Defendants' request that Plaintiff be precluded from calling Sean Kober as a witness is denied as moot. Plaintiff does not intend to call Mr. Kober. (Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. at 8 n. 5.)
11. Defendants seek preclusion of evidence of Plaintiff's various other complaints and grievances filed against Defendants in connection with other alleged incidents. Plaintiff argues that such evidence is relevant to his claim that the alleged assault at issue here was a retaliatory one. The record before the Court contains no information indicating that Defendants were aware of the complaints. Accordingly, on this record, any probative value of the evidence is minimal and there is a substantial risk of unfair prejudice to Defendants. Defendants' request to preclude the evidence is granted.
12. Defendants' request for bifurcation of the trial with respect to the issue of punitive damages is denied because Defendants have failed to sustain their burden of showing that bifurcation is warranted. See Dallas v. Goldberg, 143 F. Supp.2d 312, 315-16 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), and cases cited therein.
13. Defendants' request that they be allowed to offer evidence of their financial resources with respect to the question of the amount of any punitive damages award is granted as unopposed. Defendants' request that Plaintiff be precluded from offering any evidence of the possibility of indemnification of Defendants under Public Officers Law section 17 is denied. Plaintiff will be allowed to offer competent, otherwise admissible evidence of the possibility of indemnification under Public Officers Law section 17 in his rebuttal case if Defendants argue that an otherwise appropriate punitive damages award should be reduced in light of Defendants' financial resources. See Dallas v. Goldberg, No. 95 Civ. 9076, 2002 WL 1013291 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); Lawson v. Trowbridge, 153 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 1998).
14. Defendants' request that Plaintiff be precluded from offering evidence of the March 26, 2000, use of force incident involving Defendant Blot is granted. Plaintiff purports to offer evidence of the incident for the purpose of demonstrating a pattern of retaliatory conduct. Evidence of a defendant's pattern of conduct maybe admissible in excessive force cases on the question of the defendant's intent to inflict harm where there is no dispute that force had been used, and the defendant has raised a defense of mistake or accident. See Lombardo v. Stone, No. 99 Civ. 4603, 2002 WL 113913 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); Ismail v. Cohen, 706 F. Supp. 243 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). Here, however, the question of whether any force was used by Defendants on November 7, 1999, remains at issue. Admission of evidence of allegations of a subsequent retaliatory assault thus invites the jury to find a propensity on Defendant Blot's part to assault Plaintiff, whether in retaliation or otherwise. Accordingly, the probative value of evidence of the March 26, 2000, incident is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Defendant Blot.
15. Defendants' request for admission of Plaintiff s mental health records is granted as unopposed.
16. Defendants' request for permission to impeach Plaintiff with evidence of his prior criminal convictions is denied in part, for the reasons explained above in paragraph 2.
17. Defendants' request for permission to impeach Plaintiff by inquiring under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) into instances in which Plaintiff allegedly has provided law enforcement officials with differing social security and birthplace information is granted. Plaintiffs criminal history report provides Defendants with a good faith basis for asking Plaintiff on cross-examination about those instances, which are probative of Plaintiffs character for truthfulness.
Conclusion
The parties' respective motions in limine are granted to the extent set forth above and are denied in all other respects.SO ORDERED.