United States District Court, N.D. California
Jamal R. Trulove, Plaintiff,
Maureen D'Amico, Michael Johnson, Robert McMillan, and John Evans, Defendants.
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 2 RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND JUROR
INVESTIGATION DKT. NOS. 319, 321, 323, 325, 326, 328, 329,
Gonzalez Rogers United States District Court Judge
Court, having considered the motions in limine
submitted by Plaintiff Jamal Trulove (Dkt. Nos. 319, 321,
323, 325, 326, 328, 329), and by defendants Maureen
D'Amico, et al. (Dkt. Nos. 331 through 337),
Orders as follows:
as an overarching matter, the Court notes that its Standing
Order cautions counsel that:
Parties frequently misuse motions in limine in an
attempt to exclude broad categories of possible evidence.
Such motions are routinely denied. Any motion in
limine must specify the precise exhibits or proffered
testimony the party seeks to exclude.
(See Court's Standing Order re: Pretrial
Instructions In Civil Cases, paragraph 4.a.) To the extent
the parties have failed to heed that advice, their motions
in limine have been denied, as set forth herein.
Further, with respect to all rulings, if a party opens the
door, the other party may request reconsideration, but such
request must be done outside the presence of the jury.
Plaintiff's Motions In Limine
No. 1: To Preclude Inadmissible Opinion and Credibility
light of the plaintiff's representations at Docket Nos.
401 and 402 that they intend to dismiss the claims of
malicious prosecution, the Court Reserves on
this motion to allow the parties to address the appropriate
scope of testimony by the prosecuting attorneys, if any.
No. 2: To Preclude Questioning regarding Plaintiff's
Criminal Trial Strategy and his Counsel's
motion is Granted in Part, Denied in Part.
as a preliminary matter, the motion is overbroad. Defendants
do not dispute that plaintiff should not be questioned as to
the reasons for his choice not to testify. Accordingly, that
portion of the motion is Granted and the
Court will entertain an instruction in that regard.
certain facts regarding the circumstances of the underlying
criminal and appeal proceedings are relevant in this trial,
and the motion to exclude is, to this extent,
Denied. Plaintiff cannot eliminate from this
trial all facts which do not support his theory of the case.
Similarly, the fact of the underlying conviction, the
reversal, and the reasons for the reversal are also relevant.
The parties have come to an agreement on a stipulated
statement of the Court of Appeal's decision. (Dkt. No.
No. 3: To Preclude Evidence Of Prior Bad Acts:
motion is Denied to the extent that any
defendant seek to testify as to actions that defendant
personally took and judgments that defendant personally made
in light of all the information the defendant had at the
time, including information about gang membership. To address
the issue of the ...