Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

do. Therefore, because both parties agree not to introduce this evidence, this portion of the defendants’ motion in limine is granted by agreement. 4. El Forastero investigation The defendants move to exclude any evidence of an investigation of the El Forastero motorcycle gang in 1992. Shannon worked on the investigation as part of his job for the State of Iowa Division of Narcotics, and he apparently was involved in making sure that the investigation was kept secret, even from the Sioux City Police Department. Shannon’s deposition indicates that he believes that the Sioux City Police Department may hold a grudge against him for his involvement. Defendants’ Exhibit 1, Timothy Shannon’s Deposition at pp. 31-36 (docket no. 98-1). Shannon responds that he does not plan to introduce any evidence of the El Forastero incident. Therefore, this portion of the defendants’ motion in limine is granted by agreement. 5. Offers of compromise and “Golden Rule” arguments The defendants, citing Iowa Rule of Evidence 408, move to exclude any offers of compromise. Shannon states that he will abide by Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and that no order barring offers of compromise is necessary. The defendants also argue that under Iowa law, any Golden Rule arguments on liability or damages are inadmissible. Shannon responds that he does not intend to make any Golden Rule arguments, but he also argues that under Iowa law on Golden Rule arguments, the defendants may not present evidence that a finding for Shannon would increase taxes. To clarify for the purposes of the upcoming trial, I note for the parties that the Federal Rules of Evidence, not the Iowa Rules, govern both the federal and state claims in this case. This court has federal question jurisdiction over the § 1983 claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the state assault and battery claims because they arise from the same “common nucleus of operative fact” as the § 1983 claim. See City of Chicago 38
v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 165 (1997) (quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). When a district court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim, the Erie choice of law analysis applies just as it would in a diversity case: “Federal courts considering non-federal questions (in diversity actions, or, as here, when a state claim is heard under pendent jurisdiction) apply federal rules of procedure, and follow state law to resolve issues of substance.” Sayre v. Musicland Group, Inc., 850 F.2d 350, 352 (8th Cir. 1988) (citing Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938); Bank of St. Louis v. Morrissey, 597 F.2d 1131, 1134-35 (8th Cir.1979); 1A MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE 0.305[3], at 3050-51 (1987)). Therefore, in this case, Iowa substantive law governs the assault and battery claims, but federal law, including the Federal Rules of Evidence, dictates procedure for both the federal and state claims. See Potts v. Benjamin, 882 F.2d 1320, 1324 (8th Cir. 1989); Adams v. Fuqua Indus., Inc., 820 F.2d 271, 273 (8th Cir. 1987). Offers of compromise are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 408. FED R. EVID. 408. Therefore, this portion of the defendants’ motion in limine is granted, and both parties are barred from referring to offers of compromise. Additionally, neither party may offer “Golden Rule” arguments—for example, asking the jurors to step into the shoes of the parties or inviting jurors to consider how a verdict might affect them (or their taxes). See, e.g., Niver v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill., 433 F. Supp. 2d 968, 998 (N.D. Iowa 2006). Again, federal law governs this question of admissibility of evidence. Although no Federal Rule of Evidence explicitly speaks to Golden Rule arguments,“[s]uch an argument is universally condemned because it encourages the jury to depart from neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence.” See Lovett ex rel. Lovett v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 201 F.3d 1074, 1083 (8th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks 39
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 and 16: elevant is not admissible.” FED.
Page 17 and 18: intoxication in case number SMSM445
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: substantially outweighed by the dan
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

Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?