Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa
Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa
Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
and (4) similar in kind and close in time to the [event at issue].” Batiste-Davis v. Lincare,<br />
Inc., 526 F.3d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting Berry v. Oswalt, 143 F.3d 1127, 1132<br />
(8th Cir. 1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord United States v. Aranda, 963<br />
F.2d 211, 215 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Campbell, 937 F.2d 404, 406 (8th Cir.<br />
1991)).<br />
The complaints are classic examples <strong>of</strong> “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” evidence<br />
prohibited by Rule 404(b). They serve to show that <strong>Koehler</strong> has a propensity to use<br />
excessive force and, in conformity with that propensity, used excessive force during his<br />
encounter with <strong>Shannon</strong>. <strong>Shannon</strong> has not presented any convincing arguments as to why<br />
the complaints are admissible for “other purposes” under Rule 404(b). His argument<br />
consists <strong>of</strong> one sentence: “the prior complaints are proper evidence under Fed. R. Evid.<br />
404(b) since they go to <strong>Koehler</strong>’s motivation and intent to use force against <strong>Shannon</strong> and<br />
they go to show that <strong>Koehler</strong> disregards and disregarded his training on the use <strong>of</strong> force.”<br />
Plaintiff’s Resistance To Defendants’ Motions in Limine at 8 (docket no. 104-1).<br />
<strong>Shannon</strong>’s contention that the complaints are admissible to show that <strong>Koehler</strong><br />
disregards his training is nothing more than an attempt to prove <strong>Koehler</strong>’s character in<br />
order to show action in conformity therewith. Pro<strong>of</strong> that <strong>Koehler</strong> has disregarded his<br />
training at other times suggests that he also disregarded his training during his encounter<br />
with <strong>Shannon</strong>. <strong>Shannon</strong>’s argument, that the complaints show <strong>Koehler</strong>’s propensity to<br />
disregard his training, is prohibited under Rule 404(b). See FED. R. EVID. 404(b).<br />
As far as pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> motive and intent, <strong>Shannon</strong> does not explain the probative value<br />
<strong>of</strong> the complaints to any issue in this case, much less how they prove motive or intent.<br />
12 (...continued)<br />
States, 485 U.S. 681, 691 (1988). This apparent discrepancy does not matter in this case;<br />
as discussed below, the disputed evidence is inadmissible under either standard.<br />
33