Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

from September 13, 2006, and interference with official acts conviction, subject to a limiting instruction from the court. My proposed limiting instruction is attached infra in the Appendix; b) Defendants’ motion to exclude any evidence of excessive force complaints after September 13, 2006, against the Sioux City Police Department, as they relate to the unconstitutional custom or practice of the Sioux City Police Department or Joseph C. Frisbie, is premature. 3. Grant Shannon’s Second Motion in Limine (docket no. 119), to the extent that, a) The defendants may not refer, directly or indirectly, to the fact that Shannon’s 2011 felony conviction was his third OWI offense; b) The defendants may not refer, directly or indirectly, to Cristina Navrkal’s voluntary witness statement or her taped statement. 4. Deny Shannon’s Second Motion in Limine (docket no. 119), to the extent that the defendants may refer, directly or indirectly, to Shannon’s 2011 felony “Operating While Intoxicated” conviction to impeach his credibility under Rule 609(a), subject to a limiting instruction. 5. Grant Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Experts (docket no. 99), to the extent that Shannon may not refer, directly or indirectly, to Joseph Stine’s opinions about whether Koehler’s conduct was excessive, unreasonable, or a “shocking abuse of police powers”; the credibility of witnesses or about what occurred in the surveillance video; or Koehler’s state of mind at the time of the incident. 6. Deny Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Experts (docket no. 99), to the extent that, a) I reserve ruling on whether Joseph Stine is qualified and whether his testimony is relevant and reliable; 66
) Defendants’ motion to exclude or limit Stine’s testimony on the Monell claim is premature; c) Defendants’ motion to exclude or limit Zhongming Huang’s testimony is premature. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 16th day of September, 2011. __________________________________ MARK W. BENNETT U. S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA 67
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Not To Be Published: IN THE UNITED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 and 40: v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U
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: to grant the defendants’ request
show all

Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa

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

Delete template?

Save as template?