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.
omitted); accord Dole v. USA Waste Servs., Inc., 100 F.3d 1384, 1388 (8th Cir.1996)).<br />
Because Golden Rule arguments are so highly prejudicial and have little probative value,<br />
I will exclude them under Rule 403. Thus, this portion <strong>of</strong> the defendants’ motion in limine<br />
is granted, and both parties are barred from making such arguments.<br />
6. Excessive force incident reports<br />
The defendants seek to exclude any evidence <strong>of</strong> excessive force complaints against<br />
Sioux City police <strong>of</strong>ficers and any departmental investigations that occurred after<br />
September 13, 2006, the date <strong>of</strong> the incident in question. The defendants argue that<br />
because these complaints and investigations occurred after the incident, they have no<br />
relevance to <strong>Shannon</strong>’s claim <strong>of</strong> unconstitutional custom or practice against the City <strong>of</strong><br />
Sioux City or Joseph C. Frisbie. <strong>Shannon</strong> responds that this evidence relates solely to the<br />
Monell claim and is not properly before the court at this time because <strong>of</strong> the bifurcation<br />
<strong>of</strong> this case. I agree. The defendants may raise these issues if the case proceeds against<br />
the City <strong>of</strong> Sioux City and Joseph C. Frisbie. Therefore, this portion <strong>of</strong> the defendants’<br />
motion in limine is denied as premature.<br />
7. Bifurcation<br />
The defendants argue that <strong>Shannon</strong> should be precluded from <strong>of</strong>fering evidence <strong>of</strong><br />
his Monell and respondeat superior claims during his trial against <strong>Koehler</strong>. <strong>Shannon</strong><br />
represents that he does not intend to <strong>of</strong>fer any such evidence and argues that no additional<br />
order is necessary because I already ordered the parties not to “refer, directly or indirectly,<br />
to the discussion <strong>of</strong> bifurcation issues.” Memorandum Opinion And Order at 37 (docket<br />
no. 91). Both parties agree not to <strong>of</strong>fer any evidence <strong>of</strong> the Monell and respondeat<br />
superior claims during Officer <strong>Koehler</strong>’s trial. Thus, this portion <strong>of</strong> the defendants’<br />
motion is granted by agreement.<br />
40