Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-0175 SECTION "M" (3)
April 19, 2004
RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE
Before the Court is defendants' motion in limine regarding exhibits and testimony which may be introduced at trial that reference the City Attorney's evaluation of, or ultimate disposition of the municipal charges with which the plaintiff was booked as a result of the incident in question. The plaintiff filed a formal opposition memorandum arguing that evidence regarding the ultimate disposition of the charges (i.e., they were dropped) is relevant and necessary, otherwise the jury will be left with the mistaken impression that the plaintiff was convicted of the offenses charged. For the following reasons, the defendants' motion in limine is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Defendants contend that this Court should exclude all reference, oral and documentary, to the City Attorney's evaluation of and/or the ultimate disposition of the municipal charges that were dropped, i.e., simple battery, resisting arrest, and traffic infractions. Defendants argue that the only relevant facts are those related to the determination of whether Officer Carter had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff at the time of the incident on January 17, 2002. The defendants note that "probable cause" means "the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the officer, of which he had reasonable and trustworthy information, that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing an offense." Most notably, the defendants argue that the City Attorney's evaluation of the municipal charges against the plaintiff bears no relevance to Officer Carter's present sense impression and reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed, nor does the ultimate disposition of the municipal charges a year after the plaintiff's arrest.
See Defendants' Motion and Incorporated Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine at pp. 1-2.
As aforestated, plaintiff submits that evidence of the ultimate disposition of the charges is relevant and that without such evidence, the jury will be left with the impression that the plaintiff was convicted of the violations charged. Plaintiff points out that the defense will be prejudiced in no way by the admission, because the "probable cause" standard is not nearly as stringent as the standard required to obtain a conviction.
The Court finds that the documentary evidence as to the ultimate disposition of the charges is relevant and admissible, Whereas such evidence is not relevant to the "probable cause" determination, it is part of the res gestae and it completes the presentation of the evidence regarding the plaintiff's arrest on those charges. As to any potential for jury confusion, the Court will instruct the jury, both during the trial and in the Court's final instructions of the law, as to the inquiries relevant to its determination as to the claims of "false arrest" and "excessive force." The parties may also enter a stipulation that the charges were "dropped," which would even further diffuse possibility for jury confusion.
Turning to the issue of testimonial evidence regarding the City Attorney's evaluation of the charges, the Court will not permit speculative testimony of the plaintiff in that regard. Additionally, the "nuts and bolts" of the City Attorney's evaluation of whether to prosecute the charged offenses are completely irrelevant to both claims of "false arrest" and "excessive force" and thus the motion in limine shall be granted in that regard.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the City's Motion in Limine is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth more particularly hereinabove,