IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 20, 2010
JOHN JUSTIN JAMES, PLAINTIFFS,
SHANT SHEKLANIAN, JASON GUTKNECHT, CITY OF MADERA AND DOES 1 TO 100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE OF PLAINTIFF JOHN JUSTIN JAMES Complaint Filed: 12/17/2008 Trial: 04/20/2010
The Motions in Limine of Plaintiff, JOHN JUSTIN JAMES, came on for hearing on April 13, 2010 in Department 3 of the United States District Court.
Motion in Limine No. 1 -- to preclude/exclude evidence of Plaintiff's Group Affiliation(s), is GRANTED
Motion in Limine No. 2 -- to preclude/exclude photos, mention or evidence of Plaintiff's Tattoos, is GRANTED
Motion in Limine No. 3 -- to preclude/exclude evidence of prior arrests of Plaintiff, is GRANTED Motion in Limine No. 4 -- to preclude/ exclude evidence of any alleged prior involvement in similar incidences or alleged acts of violence related to Plaintiff, is GRANTED
Motion in Limine No. 5 -- to introduce evidence of Plaintiff's peacemaking activity prior to and at the time the officers arrived, is GRANTED, however, the jury will be instructed that the officers are not tasked with knowledge of Plaintiff's actions prior to their arrival.
Motion in Limine No. 6 -- to introduce the digital video recording of the entire incident prior to, during, and after the incident is reserved pending presentation of further evidence on the issue April 19, 2010 at 3:00 PM in Courtroom # 3 of The United States Federal Courthouse.
Motion in Limine No. 7 -- to introduce evidence that the charges levied against Plaintiff were dismissed by the Madera District Attorney's Office, is GRANTED: however, it is limited to the introduction of the dismissal and the date it occurred. The Jury will be instructed that the evidence is introduced for a limited purpose. Further, Counsel is precluded from arguing or inferring that the dismissal by the District Attorney's office is conclusive evidence that Plaintiff's arrest was unlawful.
Motion in Limine No. 8 -- to introduce evidence of the Madera Police Department's failure /refusal to conduct an administrative investigation of the underlying incident, is GRANTED to the extent that evidence may show a failure to produce stronger evidence, i.e. seek and obtain the digital video recording of the incident, a cover up of the true facts, assuming the investigating officer knew or should have known of the digital recording, similar digital recordings had been requested and provided to the Madera Police Department on a prior occasion.
Motion in Limine No. 9 -- to introduce prior similar acts, conduct or incidences that Defendant Shaklanian has been involved in, is DENIED
Motion in Limine No. 10 -- to preclude evidence not produced in discovery, is GRANTED Motion in Limine No. 11 -- to preclude impermissible hearsay, is GRANTED
Motion in Limine No. 12 -- to exclude non-party witnesses from the Courtroom, is GRANTED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.