UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 11, 2012
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable A. Howard Matz, U.S. District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Present: The Honorable A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Stephen Montes Not Reported
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)
The Court has received "Plaintiff's Response to Court's Question as to Due Process Brady Evidence Plaintiff Intends to Proffer in Phase One and Related Issues" ("Response"). (Dkt. 251.) The Court now understands that the evidence and arguments supporting Plaintiff's false evidence and Brady claims will largely overlap. The Court is perplexed, however, by Plaintiff's statement that "if the jury finds in Phase One that false evidence was presented and that it was material, the liability of the individual Defendants and the City for the violation will be determined in the Second Phase." That is not at all correct. Indeed, it is in conflict with this Court's August 11 and January 6 rulings that the trial will be bifurcated into a liability phase and a damages phase. (Dkts. 166, 246.) The liability phase (Phase One) should and will include all of Plaintiff's due process arguments, whether based on his false evidence or Brady claims, except any argument or evidence that Ryan was the killer. The damages phase (Phase Two) will focus on damages. Defendants will be permitted to introduce evidence not introduced at the trial to show that Lisker did in fact commit the murder and thus is not entitled to any damages for having been confined as a result of violations of his constitutional rights. To rebut that contention, Plaintiff will be permitted to proffer evidence that Ryan was the killer and that Defendants knew it.
Thus, the five elements of a false evidence claim that Plaintiff lists on page 4 of the Response must be proven in the liability phase. The first element (that the Defendants were acting under color of law) and fifth element (that Plaintiff was convicted and incarcerated) should be the subject of a stipulation between the parties in any event and should not require proof or argument.
The Court will decide whether to trifurcate Plaintiff's Monell claim when it rules on Defendants' Motion in Limine #14.
Initials of Preparer SMO
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.