Helmer v. Guest et al

Filing 183

OPINION & ORDER denying 163 Motion in Limine Regarding Plaintiff's Present Conviction. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM HELMER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 09-cv-11697
BRIAN GUEST, ED POKRZYWNICKI,
and DAVE STENZEL

Hon. Patrick J. Duggan

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION IN LIMINE (ECF No. 163)
This prisoner’s civil rights lawsuit, currently scheduled for trial on May 5,
2015, arises from the alleged assault of Plaintiff William Helmer by a law
enforcement official while Plaintiff was in custody. Presently before the Court
Plaintiff’s motion in limine seeking an order preventing Defendants from
introducing evidence, testimony, or witnesses regarding Plaintiff’s present
conviction. (Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 163.) This motion, filed by Plaintiff while he
was proceeding pro se, is substantially similar to a motion in limine filed by
Plaintiff’s recently-appointed counsel.
In the instant motion, Plaintiff asks this Court to exclude any evidence
pertaining to his offense of conviction, contending that any such evidence would

be unduly prejudicial. Plaintiff further contends that “his present conviction has
nothing to do with whether Deputy Guest assaulted Plaintiff.” (Pl.’s Mot. 1.)
Because Plaintiff’s attorneys have since filed another motion in limine on the same
subject, the Court will deny the instant motion to the extent it addresses the
admissibility of Plaintiff’s offense of conviction.
Plaintiff also complains that two witnesses who were not present in the
courthouse on the date of the alleged assault – Darci Dearing and former Deputy
Brian Harris – are listed as potential defense witnesses. As Defendants indicate in
their response to the motion, Ms. Dearing and Mr. Harris “are listed as possible
impeachment or rebuttal witnesses should th[eir] testimony be necessary. They are
both listed as ‘may call’ witnesses in the Proposed Joint Final Pre-Trial Order” to
which Plaintiff is referring. (Defs.’ Resp. 2, ECF No. 168.) Because the Court’s
scheduling Order requires the inclusion of all potential witnesses, including
rebuttal witnesses if their testimony could have been “reasonably anticipated[,]”
there is nothing improper about listing the two challenged witnesses at this
juncture.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion in limine (ECF No. 163) is
DENIED.
Dated: March 31, 2015
2

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Gerald J. Gleeson, II
Robert E. Murkowski
D. Randall Gilmer
G. Gus Morris

3