Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Trulove v. D'Amico

United States District Court, N.D. California

February 28, 2018

Jamal R. Trulove, Plaintiff,
v.
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, 331-337

          Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers United States District Court Judge

         The 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:

         First, 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.

         I. Plaintiff's Motions In Limine

         Plaintiff's No. 1: To Preclude Inadmissible Opinion and Credibility Testimony:

         In 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.

         Plaintiff's No. 2: To Preclude Questioning regarding Plaintiff's Criminal Trial Strategy and his Counsel's Effectiveness:

         The motion is Granted in Part, Denied in Part.

         Again, 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.

         However, 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. 390.)

         Plaintiff's No. 3: To Preclude Evidence Of Prior Bad Acts:

         The 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.