Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

omitted); accord Dole v. USA Waste Servs., Inc., 100 F.3d 1384, 1388 (8th Cir.1996)). Because Golden Rule arguments are so highly prejudicial and have little probative value, I will exclude them under Rule 403. Thus, this portion of the defendants’ motion in limine is granted, and both parties are barred from making such arguments. 6. Excessive force incident reports The defendants seek to exclude any evidence of excessive force complaints against Sioux City police officers and any departmental investigations that occurred after September 13, 2006, the date of the incident in question. The defendants argue that because these complaints and investigations occurred after the incident, they have no relevance to Shannon’s claim of unconstitutional custom or practice against the City of Sioux City or Joseph C. Frisbie. Shannon responds that this evidence relates solely to the Monell claim and is not properly before the court at this time because of the bifurcation of this case. I agree. The defendants may raise these issues if the case proceeds against the City of Sioux City and Joseph C. Frisbie. Therefore, this portion of the defendants’ motion in limine is denied as premature. 7. Bifurcation The defendants argue that Shannon should be precluded from offering evidence of his Monell and respondeat superior claims during his trial against Koehler. Shannon represents that he does not intend to offer any such evidence and argues that no additional order is necessary because I already ordered the parties not to “refer, directly or indirectly, to the discussion of bifurcation issues.” Memorandum Opinion And Order at 37 (docket no. 91). Both parties agree not to offer any evidence of the Monell and respondeat superior claims during Officer Koehler’s trial. Thus, this portion of the defendants’ motion is granted by agreement. 40
B. Plaintiff’s Second Motion In Limine 1. Shannon’s OWI conviction Shannon seeks to bar evidence of his February 24, 2011, felony Operating While Intoxicated, Third Offense conviction. Specifically, he anticipates that the defendants will introduce his sentencing order. See Defendants’ Exhibit 1011. Shannon first argues that his 2011 conviction is irrelevant to this case because the reasonableness inquiry in excessive force cases focuses on the officer’s knowledge at the time of the incident, not on incidents that occur after the fact. Second, Shannon contends that the conviction is inadmissible character evidence to show his propensity for intoxicated recklessness. Third, Shannon argues that I should not admit the conviction under 609(a) because an OWI conviction is not particularly probative of credibility and because admitting the conviction will be highly prejudicial to Shannon. Shannon asserts that the conviction will lead the jury to believe that he is a habitual drunkard who “had it coming.” See Shannon’s Second Motion in Limine at 4 (docket no. 119). The defendants argue in response that they are permitted to impeach Shannon with his felony OWI conviction under Rule 609(a). They maintain that Shannon’s credibility is central in this case, as his claim rests largely on his own testimony. Consequently, they assert that any indication of his credibility, including this conviction, is essential to their defense. The defendants argue that Rule 403 does not bar admission because the probative value of the OWI conviction is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect to Shannon. They contend that any felony conviction is at least somewhat probative of credibility. They further argue that the similarity between the OWI conviction and Shannon’s intoxicated condition on September 13, 2006, the date of the arrest at issue in this case, is not prejudicial enough to render the conviction inadmissible. If I find the conviction to be unfairly prejudicial, the defendants request that I at least permit them to 41
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 and 38: substantially outweighed by the dan
Page 39: v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?