Coleman v. Hutchins et al

Filing 108

ORDER partly granting and partly denying 68 & 69 motions in limine. Objections 97 & 98 partly sustained, partly sustained as modified, and partly overruled. New motions in limine, 100 , 102 , 104 , and 106 denied without prejudice and with directions. See attachments (A), (B), and (C). Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/19/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(jak)

Case 4:17-cv-00553-DPM Document 108 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
VANESSA COLE,
As Personal Representative of the Estate of Roy
Lee Richards Jr.
v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 4:17-cv-553-DPM

DENNIS HUTCHINS

DEFENDANT
ORDER

1. Cole's renewed motions in limine are partly granted without

objection and partly denied. Here are the Court's rulings.
• Comparative Fault
Granted without objection.
• The Rule
Granted without objection.
• Uniformed Police Officers
Denied. The Court will not limit the number of uniformed police
officers in the gallery.
• Police Officers Appearing with Weapons
Granted without objection.
• Personal Finances
Granted for the liability phase and denied for the damages phase
if a claim for punitives survives.

Case 4:17-cv-00553-DPM Document 108 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 3

• Roy Richards Jr.'s Criminal History

Granted without objection.
• Referring to Cole's Lawyer as an "Out of State Attorney"

Granted without objection.
• Hutchins's Military Background & SWAT Training

Partly granted and partly denied. Hutchins's military experience
and SWAT training are relevant background. FED. R. EVID. 401. The
Court sees no unfair prejudice in limited testimony about these things.
But there's no need to cover Hutchins's military service with lots of
details. Stick to general points. Evidence about the broken-back/ no
deadly force incident is excluded. It has limited relevance and would
distract the jury from the issues here. FED. R. EVID. 403.
2. A couple of weeks ago, the Court overlooked the undecided

motions in limine and thus reinstated them at Cole's helpful request.
Doc. 90 & 91. The Court did not reopen the time for filing evidentiary

motions or authorize new motions in limine. Cole's new motions are
therefore denied without prejudice. The Court directs counsel to confer
on these issues, if they've not already done so, and try to reach
agreement. The Court will resolve any remaining disagreement at the
pretrial or during the trial.
3. The Court notes and appreciates Cole's thoughts about and

objections to the draft jury instructions. Those objections are partly
sustained, partly sustained as modified, and partly overruled. The

-2-

Case 4:17-cv-00553-DPM Document 108 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 3

attached global redline (A) shows the changes adopted. The voir dire
and preliminary instructions (B) are locked in. We will work all on the
current drafts of the final instructions and verdicts (C) for all phases
during the trial. In particular, the Court is still considering the available
elements of compensatory damages (No. 12) and the elements for
excessive force (No. 10). The Court will complete its research and refine
these with the parties' help.

* * *
Renewed motions in limine, Doc. 68 & 69, are partly granted and
partly denied.

Objections, Doc. 97 & 98, partly sustained, partly

sustained as modified, and partly overruled. New motions in limine,
Doc. 100, 102, 104, & 106, denied without prejudice and with directions.

See Attachments (A), (B), and (C).
So Ordered.

{/

D .P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
If

-3-

1/4 :J.o:u