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