Name of Assigned Judge Harry Sitting Judge Other
or Magistrate Judge D. Leinenweber
if than Assigned Judge
The Parties' Motions in Limine are granted in part and denied in part.
O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.
The court would like to remind the parties that rulings on Motions in Limine are exactly that: "Motions in the Beginning," the rulings on which are made on an incomplete record and subject to review as the case proceeds. The limitation of these rulings is that no one is to violate them in front of the jury without first obtaining permission from the Court outside the presence of the jury.
1. To preclude audio recordings and their transcripts. Plaintiff contends that they constitute hearsay. The Defendant contends that they are admissible, not for the truth, but to show information available to Defendant prior to the arrest that lead to this law suit. Ruling: only those recordings are admissible that Defendant Love actually heard or was told about prior to the arrest. These would not be hearsay but would constitute notice to Love of what he potentially was facing in the attempt to arrest Schneider.
2. To bar disclosure of Plaintiff's prior bad acts unknown to Defendant at the time of the arrest. The first "bad act" Plaintiff raises are the facts constituting the conviction of Plaintiff of criminal sexual assault and aggravated domestic battery, the crimes for which he was arrested that is the subject of this suit. Plaintiff admits the facts are admissible to the extent that Love was aware of them. The Court agrees and if Love was not aware then the facts will not be admissible. However, the evidence concerning any injuries that may have been sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the altercation with his wife is admissible so as to differentiate those injuries from the injuries sustained in this case. If Plaintiff asserts the Fifth Amendment, the Defendant may be entitled to a negative inference instruction.
3. There is no Motion No. 3.
4. To preclude Chief Eckentstahler from testifying to matters not personally known to him. Apparently the Chief gave the order for the deputies, including Defendant, to enter the house and arrest Plaintiff. Again, what the Chief was told would constitute hearsay if admitted for the truth. However, if admitted solely to show why the chief gave a particular order, the matters would not constitute hearsay. However, the matters may require a 401 balancing so at this time the Motion is granted subject to review at the time of trial.
5. To preclude Frank Lesnak from testifying to the contents of a nurse's statement. The Defendant does not intend to use this statement except to the extent that it was communicated directly to Defendant over the radio. Therefore, the Motion is denied as moot.
6. To preclude Deputy Morrison from testifying about statements made by Nicole Motley. The Defendant does not intend to use this testimony, so the Motion is denied as moot.
7. To preclude Officer Ligenza from offering expert opinions. Defendant asserts that it should be able to elicit from Ligenza his opinion that Defendant would not have been incapacitated, based on his testimony that he was moving his head back and forth and other information such as the amount of time it would take to handcuff Schneider. Plaintiff points out that Ligenza was not designated as an expert. What Defendant proposes to elicit from Ligenza is clearly technical matters, and specialized knowledge ...