Mann v. Towne et al
ORDER directing that the Plaintiff's objections to the Defendants' witnesses are OVERRULED, subject to the witnesses providing relevant testimony, and the Plaintiff's objections to the Defendants' Exhibits are OVERRULED, except that hearsay statements within Exhibit 2 must be redacted. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 9/17/14. (scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
RANDALL E. MANN, an individual,
JASON C. TOWNE, in his individual capacity,
CHRIS MCCRANE, in his individual capacity,
and CITY OF DADEVILLE, ALABAMA,
Civil Action No. 3:13cv668-WHA
This case is before the court on Objections to the Defendants’ Exhibit List (Doc. #48) and
Witness List (Doc. #52) filed by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff has objected to several of the witnesses listed on the Defendants’ Amended
Chief B.C. Cooper Jackson’s Gap—the Plaintiff objects to this witness to the extent that
his testimony will mention arrests of the Plaintiff, Terrance Kizziah, and James Moseley. The
Plaintiff also objects that this witness cannot offer testimony as to the undergarments worn by
the Plaintiff on the day in question because this witness was not in the vicinity of the search.
The Defendants respond that Chief Cooper can be seen in the video of the traffic stop,
standing to the left of Towne’s vehicle as the Plaintiff is pulling up his shorts. The Defendants
also state that Chief Cooper has knowledge about other events surrounding the incident.
While the Plaintiff may raise an objection to particular testimony of this witness at trial,
the objection to his being called as a witness at all is due to be overruled.
The issue of
testimony regarding previous arrests will be addressed in a separate Order on the Plaintiff’s
Motion in Limine.
Anthony Vic, Jackson’s Gap—as with Chief Cooper, the Plaintiff argues that this witness
should not testify as to arrests of the Plaintiff, Kizziah, and Moseley, and should not offer
evidence as to the Plaintiff’s undergarments.
The Defendants state that Vic was present while the Plaintiff was searched.
while the Plaintiff may raise objection to particular testimony of this witness at trial, the
objection to his being called as a witness at all is due to be overruled.
The issue of testimony
regarding previous arrests will be addressed in a separate Order on the Plaintiff’s Motion in
David Barbour, Dadeville—the Plaintiff again objects on the same two grounds to this
witness, and the Defendants respond that Barbour has relevant testimony about search policies.
The policies of the City of Dadeville do not appear to be probative in this case.
Defendants can establish a basis for Barbour’s testimony to be relevant, he will be allowed to
Ronnie Brown, Dadeville; Cliff Scott, Tallapoosa County Drug Task Force; and Fred
White, Tallapoosa County Drug Task Force—the Plaintiff advances the arrest and wardrobe
arguments as to these witnesses as well, and the Defendants respond that all three witnesses were
on the scene. The Defendants contend that they have relevant testimony, and any issues the
Plaintiff has with their testimony should be considered in evaluating credibility, not
The court agrees, and the objections to these individuals be called as witnesses is
due to be OVERRULED.
Clerks of any court where Plaintiff or his witnesses have prior convictions:
objection will be resolved in the court’s separate Order on the Motion in Limine.
The Plaintiff also objects to the calling of any person necessary to authenticate any
document, record, or exhibit.
The Defendants state that they may call clerks to authenticate
documents to prove prior convictions. Again, the admissibility of prior convictions will be
decided in the context of their Motion in Limine.
Finally, the Plaintiff objects to witnesses who lack personal knowledge of the events at
issue. Such an objection can be raised during the trial.
Objections to Exhibit List
The Plaintiff states that he objects to all exhibits until their admissibility is established.
That is not a proper objection under the Scheduling Order which requires grounds for objection
and legal authorities as to the exhibits.
The Plaintiff specifically objects to
Exhibit 2—the Uniform Arrest Report for the Plaintiff from the incident in question.
The Plaintiff argues that this evidence is irrelevant, unduly prejudicial under Rule 403, improper
character evidence under Rule 404, excludable as older than 10 years under Rule 609,
inadmissible as a plea discussion under Rule 410, and improper hearsay.
The Defendants respond, but do not attach a copy of the exhibit although required to
furnish the exhibit by the Scheduling Order (Doc. #13, p.3). The Defendants largely argue that
the bases for objection do not apply to this exhibit which concerns the arrest of the Plaintiff which
forms the basis of this claims in this case. The court agrees. However, to the extent that the
arrest report contains hearsay statements, those statements are not admissible and will have to be
redacted if the Defendants seek to admit the exhibit at trial.
Exhibits 3 and 4 are documentation regarding arrests and convictions of the Plaintiff and
Terrence Kizziah. Such objections are resolved in the court’s order on the Plaintiff’s Motion in
Limine on the same subject.
Finally, the Plaintiff objects to the remainder of the Defendant’s exhibits as irrelevant. This
is not a proper objection and is due to be overruled.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections to the Defendants’
witnesses are OVERRULED, subject to the witnesses providing relevant testimony, and the
Plaintiff’s objections to the Defendants’ Exhibits are OVERRULED, except that hearsay
statements within Exhibit 2 must be redacted.
Done this 17th day of September, 2014.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?