Moore v. Liszewski et al

Filing 229

ORDER granting 219 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 227 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 6/17/2013. (anj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SAMMY J. MOORE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PETER LISZEWSKI and MARK G.
COULEAS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-cv-1148-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court are two motions in limine. Defendants have filed a motion in limine
(Doc. 219) requesting that Plaintiff be barred from testifying at trial regarding the causation of his
medical condition and that he be barred from offering evidence regarding any indemnification the
Defendants might receive from the State of Illinois. Plaintiff has also filed a motion in limine (Doc.
227) requesting that Defendants be barred from offering testimony as to the names of the convictions
that Plaintiff is currently incarcerated for. The parties have filed Responses to the respective motions
(Docs. 226 and 228, respectively). The Court rules as follows.
In their motion in limine (Doc. 219), Defendants ask that Plaintiff be barred from
testifying at trial regarding the causation of his medical condition and be barred from offering
testimony about the State of Illinois indemnifying Defendants. As to testimony regarding causation,
the parties have agreed, as does the Court, that Plaintiff is barred from testifying as to the causation of
his migraines. Plaintiff may testify about the facts of the alleged assault by Defendants as well as the
symptoms of and the fact that he suffered from migraines after the assault, but the parties have agreed
that he will not testify as to the cause of those migraines. Plaintiff is also prevented, by agreement of
the parties, from testifying about any statements made by the medical staff, who treated Plaintiff,

about his medical condition. Such evidence would be hearsay and thus inadmissible. Plaintiff also
does not object to barring testimony that the State of Illinois will indemnify defendants, and thus that
evidence is barred as well. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion in limine (Doc.
219).
Plaintiff has also filed a motion in limine (Doc. 227) seeking to bar testimony regarding
his prior convictions. Defendants have responded that the testimony is relevant and admissible
under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a). The Court notes that Plaintiff has been convicted of five
felony convictions, one of which he received for Aggravated Battery from the alleged incident
involving defendants.
FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 609 states that “evidence that a witness other
than an accused has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted, subject to Rule 403[‘s rule excluding
relevant evidence that is unduly prejudicial], if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in
excess of one year.” FED.R.EVID. 609(a)(1). The ten year period in Rule 609 is calculated from
the later of the date of conviction or release. FED.R.EVID. 609(b). However, the admissibility of
evidence is subject to Rule 403 which provides that “relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” FED.R.EVID. 403.
As to the four convictions other than the Aggravated Battery charge, the Court finds
that the name of Plaintiff’s crime and the sentence Plaintiff received for the crime is highly prejudicial.
However, the Court also finds that, as Defendants have stated, the conviction has some probative
value. Thus, the Court ORDERS that, as to those four convictions, Defendants may elicit the
number of convictions, and the fact that they are felonies, for which Plaintiff is currently incarcerated,
but Defendants shall not elicit testimony regarding the nature of the convictions or the sentence that
Plaintiff received as such testimony would be highly prejudicial and outweighs the probative value of
the evidence. However, as to the 2007 Aggravated Battery conviction which stems from the incident

at issue in this case, the Court finds that such testimony regarding the conviction is both permissible
and relevant. Thus, Defendants may elicit testimony regarding that conviction. Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion in limine (Doc. 227).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 17, 2013.
/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge