Handy Jones v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota et al

Filing 194

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 165 Motion in Limine: a. Defendants Motion 1 is GRANTED in part to exclude any broad sweeping statements about the Golden Rule or Reptile Theory; and b. Def endants Motions 2 and 3 are GRANTED. Granting 173 Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to Police Shootings.Granting in Part and Denying in Part 177 Motion in Limine:a. Plaintiffs Motion 1 to exclude any mention of drugs, f irearms or ballistic evidence found in the apartment of Markeeta Johnson-Blakney is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: i. The video evidence created by Markeeta Johnson-Blakney [Defendants Proposed Exhibit No. 5] will be admitted; and ii. The photographs of the apartment after the incident [Defendants Proposed Exhibit Nos. 911] will be excluded. b. Plaintiffs Motions 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14 are GRANTED;c. Plaintiffs Motion 4 is DENIED; d. Plaintiffs Motion 8 i s GRANTED in part and limited to the facts provided by the Court in its statement of the case; e. Plaintiffs Motion 9 is GRANTED in part and DENIED as moot in part and no officers will be permitted to testify about the incident; and f. Plaintiffs Motions 10 and 13 are DENIED as moot. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on 1/7/2025. (KKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
KIM DIANE HANDY JONES, as Trustee for
the next of kin of Cordale Quinn Handy,

Civil No. 20-707 (JRT/ECW)

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA; and
NATHANIEL YOUNCE, St. Paul Police
Officer, in his individual and official
capacities,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART THE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Defendants.

Kenneth R. White, LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH R. WHITE, P.C., 212 Madison
Avenue, Suite 200, Mankato, MN 56001; Kevin William O’Connor,
O’CONNOR LAW FIRM, LTD., 19 South LaSalle, Suite 1400, Chicago, IL
60603; and Paul J. Bosman, 2136 Ford Parkway, Suite 5328, Saint Paul, MN
55116, for Plaintiff.
Anthony G. Edwards, SAINT PAUL CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, CIVIL
LITIGATION DIVISION, 750 City Hall and Courthouse, 15 West Kellogg
Boulevard, Saint Paul, MN 55102; Stephanie A. Angolkar, IVERSON
REUVERS, 9321 Ensign Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55438, for
Defendants.
Plaintiff Kim Diane Handy Jones, as trustee for the next of kin of Cordale Quinn
Handy, initiated this action after Handy was shot and killed in 2017 by Saint Paul police
officers. In preparation for retrial on the issue of compensatory damages, both parties
have filed motions in limine. While the Court ruled on most of the motions during the

hearing,1 it deferred ruling on Handy Jones’s first motion in limine, which sought to
exclude photographic and video evidence from the night Handy was killed, until it could
review the evidence. After review, the Court finds that the video recorded by Markeeta
Johnson-Blakney is relevant to the Cordale Handy’s habits and lifestyle and that the
probative value is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudice. See Fed. R. Evid.
403. However, the photographs of the bedroom by officers after the incident are
needlessly cumulative and thus will be excluded. Id.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine [Docket No. 177] are GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part as follows:
a. Plaintiff’s Motion 1 to exclude any mention of drugs, firearms or ballistic
evidence found in the apartment of Markeeta Johnson-Blakney is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
i. The video evidence created by Markeeta Johnson-Blakney
[Defendants’ Proposed Exhibit No. 5] will be admitted; and

1 Those rulings are included in the Order here, but the Court does not restate the oral

reasoning already provided.

-2-

ii. The photographs of the apartment after the incident
[Defendants’ Proposed Exhibit Nos. 9–11] will be excluded.
b. Plaintiff’s Motions 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14 are GRANTED;
c. Plaintiff’s Motion 4 is DENIED;
d. Plaintiff’s Motion 8 is GRANTED in part and limited to the facts provided
by the Court in its statement of the case;
e. Plaintiff’s Motion 9 is GRANTED in part and DENIED as moot in part and
no officers will be permitted to testify about the incident; and
f. Plaintiff’s Motions 10 and 13 are DENIED as moot.
2. Defendants’ Motions in Limine [Docket No. 165] are GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part as follows:
a. Defendants’ Motion 1 is GRANTED in part to exclude any broad
sweeping statements about the “Golden Rule” or “Reptile Theory”; and
b. Defendants’ Motions 2 and 3 are GRANTED.
3. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to exclude reference to police shootings [Docket
No. 173] is GRANTED.

DATED: January 7, 2025
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge

-3-