Doe v. Cahokia School District # 187 et al

Filing 82

ORDER granting 74 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 12-17-14. (cmh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 14-cv-904-SMY-PMF

CAHOKIA SCHOOL DISTRICT #187,
MARIO HUNT, and TANYA MITCHELL,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s First Motion in Limine (Doc. 74).
Plaintiff motions the Court to exclude evidence, including medical records, regarding Plaintiff’s
prior sexual behavior and/or sexual orientation pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 412.
Defendant argues that the motion in limine is premature as trial is still several months out.
Defendant also argues that such evidence would be admissible. Specifically, Defendant states
evidence that Plaintiff engaged in consensual sexual acts with other males prior to the alleged is
relevant to the defense that any alleged sexual with Defendant Hunt was consensual. It would
also demonstrate that Plaintiff had previously consented to sexual relationships with men. The
evidence would be for the purpose of establishing that, because Plaintiff consented to sexual
contact with men, he likely consented to any contact with Hunt. Defendant also argues that
evidence that Plaintiff consented to sexual contact with other males establishes that Plaintiff had
the ability to understand the nature of sexual relations and consent to such relations. Defendant
further argues that such evidence is also relevant on the issue of damages. Evidence that
Plaintiff had prior sexual relationships with other males could be found to diminish Plaintiff’s
claim for pain, suffering and emotional injuries.

Federal Rule of Evidence 412 states:
(a) Prohibited Uses. The following evidence is not admissible in a civil or
criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct:
(1) evidence offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual
behavior; or
(2) evidence offered to prove a victim's sexual predisposition.
...
(2) Civil Cases. In a civil case, the court may admit evidence offered to
prove a victim's sexual behavior or sexual predisposition if its probative
value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of
unfair prejudice to any party. The court may admit evidence of a victim's
reputation only if the victim has placed it in controversy.
Fed. R. Evid. 412. The notes state:
The rule aims to safeguard the alleged victim against the invasion of privacy,
potential embarrassment and sexual stereotyping that is associated with public
disclosure of intimate sexual details and the infusion of sexual innuendo into the
factfinding process.
Fed. R. Evid. 412.
The purposes stated by Defendant for which the evidence would be used are in direct
contravention of the language and policy behind Rule 412. Defendant seeks to show that
Plaintiff engaged in other sexual behavior and to show Plaintiff’s sexual predisposition.
Evidence that Plaintiff engaged in consensual sexual acts with other males is irrelevant to
establishing that he consented to any sexual contact with Hunt, and to the extent that it is
relevant, its probative value does not substantially outweigh the danger of harm to any victim or
of unfair prejudice to any party. Further, the statutory age of consent in Illinois is 17, or 18
where the accused is a family member or a person in a position of trust or authority. People v.
Lloyd, 987 N.E.2d 386, 393 (IL 21013). Evidence that Plaintiff consented to sexual acts with
other males is not necessary to establish that Plaintiff was able to consent given the statutory age
of consent.

2

Defendant relies on Berry v. Deloney, 28 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 1994) for its assertion that
the evidence would be admissible on the question of damages. However, Defendant’s reliance
on Berry is misplaced. Berry arose from events that occurred in 1987 between a student and a
truant officer. Id. at 605. The civil case was brought in 1991. Id. The only reference to Rule
412 is found in a footnote, which states:
Berry's invocation of Rule 412 of the Federal Rule of Evidence and two cases
applying Rule 412 . . . is inapposite. Rule 412, which essentially prohibits
evidence of the victim's past sexual behavior in rape or sexual assault case,
applies by its terms only to criminal sex offense cases. See Fed.R.Evid. 412(a)–
(b).
Berry v. Deloney, 28 F.3d 604, 608 (7th Cir. 1994). Subsequently, Rule 412 underwent
substantial revisions in 1994, and these revisions were designed “to diminish some of the
confusion engendered by the original rule and to expand the protection afforded alleged victims
of sexual misconduct.” F. R. Evid. 412 (emphasis added). Among the changes to the rule was
the extension of the protections afforded to alleged victims in civil cases. Therefore, following
the decision in Berry would be in direct contravention of Rule 412.
Even if admissible on the issue of damages, evidence of prior consensual sexual acts to
mitigate damages caused by non-consensual acts would be of minimal probative value due to the
nature of the acts. Allowing Plaintiff’s sexual history into evidence would promote precisely the
type of stereotypical thinking Rule 412 was meant to prevent and would lead to prejudice to
Plaintiff. The probative value of the evidence does not substantially outweigh the danger of
harm to any victim or of unfair prejudice to any party. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s First Motion in
Limine (Doc. 74) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: December 19, 2014

3