Wade et al v. Officer Demetrius Breland et al

Filing 89

ORDER granting 83 Motion in Limine; granting 85 Motion in Limine Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 3/20/2018 (srd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
GEORGE L. WADE, JR.
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-47-KS-MTP

DEMETRIUS BRELAND

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion in Limine [83] filed by Plaintiff George L.
Wade, Jr., and the Motion in Limine [85] filed by Defendant Demetrius Breland. After considering
the submissions of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that both motions
are well taken and should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 13, 2016, Plaintiffs George L. Wade, Jr., (“Wade Jr.”) and the Estate of George
L. Wade, Sr. (“Wade Sr.”), Deceased, and his Heirs at Law (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this
action against Defendants City of Hattiesburg and Officers Demetrius Breland (“Breland”) and
Natrottam Holden. The only claim that remains pending is the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against
Breland for the violation of Wade Jr.’s Fourth Amendment right against excessive force.
II. DISCUSSION
A.

Wade Jr.’s Motion in Limine [83]

Wade Jr. asks that the Court exclude mention of his prior convictions at trial. He contends
that these convictions are not admissible under F.R.E. 609(b), as he completed serving his time for
them in 1990. Breland argues that these convictions are admissible under F.R.E. 609(b), as they
properly impeach Wade Jr.’s testimony by showing his bias against the Hattiesburg Police
Department, whose officers arrested him for these previous convictions.

F.R.E. 609(b) admits as impeachment evidence convictions over ten years old “only if . . .
its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its
prejudicial effect.” Fed. R. Evid. 609(b). “The general rule is inadmissibility.” United States v.
Estes, 994 F.2d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Cathey, 591 F.2d 268, 25 (5th Cir.
1979)).

Prior convictions over ten years old should only be admitted in “exceptional

circumstances.” Cathey, 591 F.2d at 275.
The Court does not find the circumstances before it to be “exceptional.” Though Wade
Jr.’s previous convictions could have given him a bias towards law enforcement, these convictions
occurred over twenty-eight years ago. Their probative value as to his current biases is small while
their potentially prejudicial effect is great. There is a great risk that the jury, if presented with
Wade Jr.’s previous convictions, “may misuse the evidence by considering [Wade Jr.] a person of
criminal tendencies” and therefore more likely to have resisted arrest as Breland contends. See
Cathey, 591 F.2d at 275. The Court therefore does not find that the probative value of these past
convictions outweigh their potential for prejudice. The motion will therefore be granted, and this
evidence will be excluded.
B.

Breland’s Motion in Limine [85]

Breland asks the Court to exclude all references to the disposition of the criminal case
against Wade Jr. stemming from the night at issue. Because these references would be irrelevant
in a case solely concerned with whether the force used was excessive and because Wade Jr. has
not opposed this motion, the Court finds that the motion should be granted.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion in Limine [83] is
granted.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion in Limine [85] is
granted.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, on this, the 20th day of March, 2018.

s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3