McCranie et al v. Larkins et al

Filing 164

ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Melissa Blyze, Karen Madison, Carl Brawley, Clayton Agnew, and Kevin Boyer's motion in limine is DENIED in part and DENIED in part as moot. The motion is DENIED to the extent defendants seek to e xclude evidence of or reference to: (1) defendants' alleged violations of Department of Corrections or Eastern Reception, Diagnostic, and Correctional Center's policies or practices, written or unwritten; (2) the condition of plaintiff' ;s body before and after the use-of-force incident, and the pain and suffering plaintiff alleges he endured; and (3) defendants actions immediately after the use-of-force incident, including whether defendants prevented plaintiff from taking a shower and/or placed him in a cell with no running water. Defendants' motion in limine is also DENIED in part to the extent defendants seek to introduce evidence of plaintiff's prior felony convictions. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609, defenda nts may introduce evidence of or refer to plaintiff's felony convictions for kidnaping and tampering with a motor vehicle. Defendants, however, shall not introduce evidence of or refer to plaintiff's felony convictions for violence against or endangering correctional officers, as such evidence would be unfairly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. In all other respects, defendants' motion is DENIED as moot, as plaintiff's counsel has indicated he does not object to the items of evidence sought to be limited, or those sought to be introduced by defendants. [Doc. 144] Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 4/11/2012. (NCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
REV. WILLIE MCCRANIE-El,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVE LARKINS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:10-CV-312 CAS

ORDER
In accordance with the pretrial conference held in this matter on April 10, 2012, and as
announced from the bench;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Melissa Blyze, Karen Madison, Carl Brawley,
Clayton Agnew, and Kevin Boyer’s motion in limine is DENIED in part and DENIED in part as
moot. The motion is DENIED to the extent defendants seek to exclude evidence of or reference
to: (1) defendants’ alleged violations of Department of Corrections or Eastern Reception,
Diagnostic, and Correctional Center’s policies or practices, written or unwritten; (2) the condition
of plaintiff’s body before and after the use-of-force incident, and the pain and suffering plaintiff
alleges he endured; and (3) defendants’ actions immediately after the use-of-force incident,
including whether defendants prevented plaintiff from taking a shower and/or placed him in a cell
with no running water. Defendants’ motion in limine is also DENIED in part to the extent
defendants seek to introduce evidence of plaintiff’s prior felony convictions. Under Federal Rule
of Evidence 609, defendants may introduce evidence of or refer to plaintiff’s felony convictions for
kidnaping and tampering with a motor vehicle. Defendants, however, shall not introduce evidence
of or refer to plaintiff’s felony convictions for violence against or endangering correctional officers,

as such evidence would be unfairly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. In all other
respects, defendants’ motion is DENIED as moot, as plaintiff’s counsel has indicated he does not
object to the items of evidence sought to be limited, or those sought to be introduced by defendants.
[Doc. 144]

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this

11th

day of April, 2012.