Escobar v. European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company et al

Filing 320

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1, SECTION 10 RE: EXCLUDING UNNECESSARY AND INFLAMMATORY PHOTOS OF THE ACCIDENT SCENE OR REMAINS (ECF No. 211 ) AND DEFENDANT'S ADDENDUM IN SUPPORT OF OMNIBUS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1, S ECTION 10 (ECF No. 295 ). Signed by U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 10/5/2016. (afc)Defendant's MOTION in Limine, doc. 211 , is also addressed in the Minutes of Further Final Pretrial Conference hearing held 9/29/2016. Minutes: doc no. 294 .CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

VIOLETA ESCOBAR, also known as
VIOLETA ESCOBAR CLINE,
Individually and as Personal
Representative for the ESTATE
OF NATHAN CLINE, Deceased,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AIRBUS HELICOPTERS SAS,

Defendant.
______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 13-00598 HG-RLP

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1, SECTION 10
RE: EXCLUDING UNNECESSARY AND INFLAMMATORY PHOTOS OF THE
ACCIDENT SCENE OR REMAINS (ECF No. 211)
AND
DEFENDANT’S ADDENDUM IN SUPPORT OF OMNIBUS MOTION IN LIMINE
NO. 1, SECTION 10 (ECF No. 295)

Defendant Airbus Helicopters SAS seeks to prohibit
evidence of the accident scene that is unnecessary or
inflammatory.

Section 10 of Defendant’s Motion in Limine No.

1 stated that it seeks to preclude Plaintiff from introducing
evidence of body remains found at the scene.

(Def.’s Omnibus

Motion in Limine No. 1 at p. 9, ECF No. 211).
On September 30, 2016, Defendant filed Defendant’s
Addendum in Support of Section 10 of its Motion in Limine No.

1

1.

(Def.’s Addendum in Support, ECF No. 295).

Defendant’s

Addendum included copies of the particular evidence of the
accident scene it wishes to preclude.

The evidence consists

of photographs of body remains of the victims of the
helicopter accident.

(Photographs attached as Ex. A to Def.’s

Addendum, ECF No. 295-2).
Relevant evidence is admissible unless its probative
value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair
prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue
delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence.

Fed. R. Evid. 403.

Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when its probative
value is outweighed because of its ability to appeal to the
jury’s sympathies, arouse jurors’ sense of horror, provoke a
jury’s instinct to punish, and trigger other intense human
reactions.

WEINSTEIN’S FEDERAL EVIDENCE § 403.04[1][c];

Beachy v. Boise Cascade Corp., 191 F.3d 1010, 1014 (9th Cir.
1999); United States v. Brady, 579 F.2d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir.
1978).
The photographs submitted by the Defendant depict graphic
images of dead bodies and badly burned remains.

Inflammatory

photographic evidence regarding the accident scene and
evidence of body remains found at the scene is of minimal

2

probative value that is outweighed by the emotional reaction
that the evidence would provoke in the jurors.

Campbell v.

Keystone Aerial Surveys, Inc., 138 F.3d 996, 1004-05 (5th Cir.
1998) (affirming exclusion of photographs of decapitated and
badly burned remains of decedent killed in an airplane crash
because the photographs created a risk that the jury’s
decision would be based on visceral response to those images).

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 as to Section #10 (ECF
No. 211) is GRANTED.
The photographs attached as Ex. A to Defendant’s Addendum
(ECF No. 295-2) are inadmissible pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.
403.
Both Parties are precluded from introducing unnecessary
and inflammatory photographs of the accident scene that
include body remains found at the scene.
A Party that objects to any additional proposed exhibit
on the grounds that it is unnecessary, inflammatory, or
offensive shall provide notice to the Court so a ruling can be
//
//
//
3

made prior to trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 5, 2016, Honolulu, Hawaii.

_________________________________
__
Helen Gillmor
United States District Judge

Violeta Escobar, also known as Violeta Escobar Cline,
Individually, and as Personal Representative for the Estate of
Nathan Cline, Deceased v. Airbus Helicopters SAS, Civil No.
13-00598 HG-RLP; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
NO. 1, SECTION 10 RE: EXCLUDING UNNECESSARY AND INFLAMMATORY
PHOTOS OF THE ACCIDENT SCENE OR REMAINS (ECF No. 211) AND
DEFENDANT’S ADDENDUM IN SUPPORT OF OMNIBUS MOTION IN LIMINE
NO. 1, SECTION 10 (ECF No. 295)
4