Miller v. Schmitz et al
Filing
70
AMENDED 69 Order Re 68 Stipulations Re: Trial Evidence, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/10/2013. (Gaumnitz, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
ISAAC MILLER,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
Case No. 1:12-cv-0137 LJO SAB
AMENDED ORDER RE: STIPULATIONS
RE: TRIAL EVIDENCE
v.
(Doc. 68)
HANFORD POLICE OFFICER STEVE
SCHMITZ, et al.,
Defendants.
15
/
16
17
On October 9, 2013, the parties submitted 16 stipulations regarding trial evidence. The Court
18
has reviewed the stipulations and approves all of them except for Stipulation Nos. 9 and 10. Under
19
Stipulation No. 9, the parties propose that each party be allowed five peremptory challenges during
20
jury selection. Yet pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1870, each party is only entitled to three peremptory
21
challenges, and the parties have provided no authority or cause for departing from § 1870.1 Similarly,
22
the Court does not see good cause for approving Stipulation No. 10.
23
Accordingly, only the following stipulations are approved:
24
1.
25
During the initial introductory phases of the trial, as well as during jury selection and
the remainder of the trial itself, only the defense counsel actively participating in the
26
27
28
1
While Defendant Schmitz and Defendant City of Hanford are distinct parties, the Court considers
them to be a single party for the purposes of peremptory challenges. See 28 U.S.C. § 1870 (“Several
defendants . . . may be considered as a single party for the purposes of making challenges.”)
1
1
trial proceedings need be introduced to and identified for the jury. The defense counsel
2
introduced and identified also shall be disclosed as attorneys with the firm of
3
McCormick Barstow LLP.
4
2.
after the parties have rested.
5
6
Witnesses shall be excluded from the courtroom, until after they have been released, or
3.
Only witnesses disclosed and identified during the discovery process shall be allowed
7
to testify at trial. The only exception shall be for rebuttal witnesses, so long as it is
8
proven that any such witnesses are truly rebuttal witnesses who did not have to be
9
disclosed and identified during discovery.
10
4.
Only documents and things disclosed during the discovery process shall be allowed as
11
evidence at trial. The only exception shall be for rebuttal evidence, so long as it is
12
proven that any such evidence is truly rebuttal evidence that did not have to be
13
disclosed during discovery.
14
5.
Consistent with Federal Rule of Evidence 608, evidence of the truthfulness of a witness
15
shall only be allowed after that witness has been impeached with evidence of
16
untruthfulness.
17
6.
No reference to or evidence of settlement negotiations shall be allowed.
18
7.
Plaintiff’s counsel shall not make any inquiry, comment or argument before the jury to
19
suggest the jury should calculate plaintiff’s damages according to the amount the jurors
20
believed they would be personally entitled to as recompense for similar injuries.
21
8.
Court’s summary judgment ruling, before the jury.
22
23
11.
12.
28
Neither party shall refer to or attempt to introduce evidence of Michael Signorile’s
remote failure to appear in Sacramento County Superior Court.
26
27
Defendant Officer Schmitz shall produce his original investigative notes and notebooks
for trial, to the extent they still exist.
24
25
Neither party shall make reference to the summary judgment proceedings, or the
13.
Neither party shall be allowed to introduce evidence on issues concerning which party
failed to respond to discovery on the basis of privilege.
2
14.
1
The use of the plaintiff’s photo lineup or warrantless arrest notice shall be accompanied
2
by an advisement to the jury that plaintiff’s photo is from the Department of Motor
3
Vehicles and is not a mug shot.
15.
4
The defense will not argue or suggest that defendant Officer Schmitz will have to pay
any judgment against him personally.
5
16.
6
No evidence of or reference to the result of any internal affairs or municipal civil
liability investigation shall be allowed at trial.
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
13
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
October 10, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
b9ed48bb
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?