Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa

substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Koehler, see FED. R. EVID.
403, as the jury could interpret the evidence as showing Koehler’s propensity to use
excessive force, rather than showing intent. Under the Batiste-Davis standard of “higher
in probative value than in prejudicial effect,” which tips more towards exclusion, the
evidence would likewise be inadmissible. See Batiste-Davis, 526 F.3d at 380. Thus, the
July 2, 2005, complaint is not admissible to show intent in Shannon’s state assault and
battery claims.
Therefore, this portion of the defendants’ motion in limine is granted in part and
denied in part. The defendants request that I bar evidence of any other excessive force
complaints claims against Koehler, but it is not clear that the defendants have identified all
of the excessive force claims against Koehler for my review. Thus, I will not bar evidence
of all other excessive force claims against Koehler in case others exist, but I will decide
what I can at this juncture. The November 3, 2006, incident is not admissible for any
purpose because it is too different from this case. The July 2, 2005, incident is not
admissible to show motive, intent, or that Koehler disregards his training, and not
otherwise admissible unless Shannon shows some permissible other purpose under Rule
404(b).
3. Motor vehicle accident
The defendants request that I bar any reference to an incident on October 26, 2005,
in which Koehler responded to a motor vehicle accident involving Shannon’s wife.
Apparently, a dispute arose between Shannon and Koehler when Shannon arrived, and the
defendants anticipate that Shannon may attempt to introduce evidence of this incident to
show that Koehler held a grudge against him. The defendants argue that any evidence of
Koehler’s subjective intentions is irrelevant to this case. Shannon responds that he does
not plan to introduce evidence of what occurred during the incident unless the defendants
37