Hill v. Star et al
Filing
196
ORDER bifurcating issues at trial. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 06/03/2015. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2015)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
TION ALONZO HILL,
Plaintiff,
5
6
7
8
v.
JOSHUA ARNOLD, et al.,
Case No. 09-cv-05434-TEH
ORDER BIFURCATING ISSUES AT
TRIAL
Defendants.
9
10
The Court has considered the parties’ arguments regarding Plaintiff’s First Motion
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
in Limine (Docket Nos. 149, 163). The Court is concerned that evidence of Plaintiff’s
12
criminal history will be highly prejudicial to Plaintiff’s case. However, such evidence is
13
also relevant to whether Defendants’ actions caused Plaintiff’s alleged injuries (an element
14
of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim), as well as the extent of any such harm to be
15
considered in a damages calculation. Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instructions at 3 (Docket
16
No. 128); Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions at 2 (Docket No. 130). Indeed,
17
Plaintiff’s own damages expert testified that the death of Plaintiff’s girlfriend, for which
18
Plaintiff was convicted of murder and attempted arson, is a “secondary cause” of his PTSD
19
symptoms. Ex. N to Oldfather Decl. at 3 (Docket No. 167-14).
20
“[T]o avoid prejudice . . . the court may order a separate trial of one or more
21
separate issues . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). In order to avoid prejudice against Plaintiff,
22
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s trial shall be bifurcated into the following two
23
phases: first, the parties shall try the first two elements of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth
24
Amendment claim, that is, whether Defendants used excessive force against Plaintiff with
25
the intent to cause him harm, and related defenses. Second, if the jury returns a verdict for
26
Plaintiff on the first two elements, the parties shall try the third element of the Fourteenth
27
Amendment claim, whether the acts of Defendants caused harm to Plaintiff, as well as the
28
extent of Plaintiff’s damages.
Although it will not eliminate the risk of prejudice completely, the Court finds that
1
2
separate phases of trial on these issues will reduce the risk of prejudice to Plaintiff from the
3
jury considering the evidence for those elements for which it is not relevant, while
4
permitting consideration of the evidence where it is relevant.
This Order is not an order on Plaintiff’s First Motion in Limine. Nor does the
5
6
language above constitute an order on the parties’ proposed jury instructions on the
7
Fourteenth Amendment claim. Rather, the language merely outlines the two phases of
8
trial.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
14
Dated: 06/03/2015
_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?