Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$C:\Documents and Settings\sey\Desktop\JSS OPINIONS\JSS-05-CV ...$

v. Adams, 401 F.3d 886, 900 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Shoffner, 71 F.3d 1429, 1433 (8th Cir. 1995)). The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 403 also explain that a determination on unfair prejudice should include consideration of the possible effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of a limiting instruction. FED. R. EVID. 403, Advisory Committee Notes; see also United States v. Hawthorne, 235 F.3d 400, 404 (8th Cir. 2000) (finding that relevance of evidence was not outweighed by any potential prejudice within the meaning of either Rule 404(b) or Rule 403 where the evidence was used for a limited purpose and the district court gave a limiting instruction). Rule 403 also permits exclusion of relevant evidence on the basis of its potential for confusion of the issues. FED. R. EVID. 403. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained, “‘[c]onfusion of the issues warrants exclusion of relevant evidence if admission of the evidence would lead to litigation of collateral issues.’” Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Thien, 63 F.3d 754, 758 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Dennis, 625 F.2d 782, 796-97 (8th Cir. 1980)). A. Defendants’ Motions in Limine 1. Shannon’s acquittals and conviction The defendants seek to exclude evidence of Shannon’s acquittal on the charge of assaulting a peace officer. Three criminal charges arose from the September 13, 2006, incident at issue in this case. Shannon was charged with assault of a peace officer, interference with official acts, and public intoxication. A jury found Shannon not guilty of assault of peace officer in case number SRCR069941, see Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 at 1 (docket no. 104-2), and Judge McCormick of the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County found him guilty of interference with official acts and not guilty of public 16
intoxication in case number SMSM445556, see Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 (docket no. 104-3). 8 The defendants anticipate that Shannon will attempt to introduce evidence of Shannon’s acquittal for assault of a peace officer to prove that he did not touch Officer Koehler during the September 13, 2006, incident. The defendants contend that the acquittal is inadmissible for two reasons: first, under Rule 402, evidence of Shannon’s acquittal is irrelevant because it does not prove innocence and instead only shows that the prosecution did not meet its high burden in a criminal case; and second, evidence of Shannon’s acquittal is inadmissible hearsay. Finally, the defendants request an order requiring that the parties refer to the assault trial as “the prior court proceeding” if the parties use testimony from the assault trial for impeachment purposes. Shannon responds that he does not plan to introduce evidence of any of the criminal proceedings, including the acquittal. He also agrees with the defendants’ request that the parties refer to the trial as the “prior court proceeding” for impeachment purposes. Nevertheless, Shannon anticipates from the defendants’ exhibit list that they plan to introduce evidence of the charges filed against Shannon and his conviction for interference with official acts. It appears that the exhibits in controversy are 1002, Shannon’s admission that he was convicted of Interference with Official Acts; 1003, the Sioux City Police Department Incident Reports, which state the charges of Assault-Serious-Police Officer, Interference with Official Act, and Public Intoxication; and 1012, the Woodbury County judge’s order finding Shannon guilty of interference with official acts and not guilty of public intoxication. Shannon argues that no evidence from any of the criminal 8 The prosecution and Shannon agreed that the public intoxication and interference with official acts charges would be tried before a judge, and the assault of a peace officer charge would be tried before a jury. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, Woodbury County Court File at 1 (docket no. 104-2). 17
Page 1 and 2: Not To Be Published: IN THE UNITED
Page 3 and 4: Plaintiff’s Second Motion In Limi
Page 5 and 6: However, Shannon alleges that he di
Page 7 and 8: B. Procedural Background On August
Page 9 and 10: On September 20, 2010, the defendan
Page 11 and 12: neither is sufficiently qualified t
Page 13 and 14: On May 17, 2011, Shannon filed his
Page 15: elevant is not admissible.” FED.
Page 19 and 20: Alternatively, Shannon asserts that
Page 21 and 22: incident.” (citing Schulz v. Long
Page 23 and 24: of force was reasonable because the
Page 25 and 26: 10 (...continued) Dettman v. Krucke
Page 27 and 28: There are two primary reasons why a
Page 29 and 30: as a witness in the plaintiff’s c
Page 31 and 32: and his conviction for interference
Page 33 and 34: and (4) similar in kind and close i
Page 35 and 36: cannot use the July 2, 2005, compla
Page 37 and 38: substantially outweighed by the dan
Page 39 and 40: v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U
Page 41 and 42: B. Plaintiff’s Second Motion In L
Page 43 and 44: likely than most to be deterred fro
Page 45 and 46: Therefore, the defendants may only
Page 47 and 48: knew at the time. The defendants al
Page 49 and 50: e ‘dealt with as the circumstance
Page 51 and 52: Navrkal admitted she was intoxicate
Page 53 and 54: “probably” reflected what she b
Page 55 and 56: ecause it relies on an incomplete a
Page 57 and 58: determine a fact in issue, a witnes
Page 59 and 60: state], testimony in the form of an
Page 61 and 62: that although officers “acted cor
Page 63 and 64: whether Stine used reliable methods
Page 65 and 66: to grant the defendants’ request
Page 67 and 68:
) Defendants’ motion to exclude o
show all

Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?