Curtis v. Baker et al

Filing 94

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 80 Plaintiff's motion in limine; granting 81 Defendant's motion in limine. Signed on 10/18/11 by District Judge Greg Kays. (Francis, Alexandra) Modified on 10/18/2011 - mailed to pltf(Francis, Alexandra).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
LARRY GENE CURTIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COI BAKER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:09-CV-06098-DGK

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine (doc. 80) and Defendant Baker’s
Motion In Limine (doc. 81). Plaintiff moves to exclude any reference to: his past criminal
history, any past court ruling that does not pertain to this case, or any mention of his medical
history that does not pertain to this case. Baker seeks to exclude any prior rulings, findings, or
orders by this Court regarding Plaintiff’s claims; any reference to the fact that Plaintiff has not
hired or been appointed counsel; any evidence or mention of coverage under the State of
Missouri’s Legal Expense Fund; and any offers, demands, or information relating to settlement
negotiations. The Court rules as follows.
I.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine.
1.

Limited evidence of Plaintiffs’ criminal history is admissible.

Federal Rule of Evidence 609 provides that for purposes of attacking the character for
truthfulness of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a felony is admissible
if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its
prejudicial effect. Admission of such evidence “is based on the common sense proposition that
one who has transgressed society’s norms by committing a felony is less likely than most to be

deterred from lying under oath.” Cummings v. Malone, 995 F.2d 817, 826 (8th Cir. 1993).
Cross-examination, however, is “limited to eliciting the name, date and disposition of the felony”
for each felony committed. Id. Accordingly, if Plaintiff testifies Baker will be allowed to elicit
on cross-examination the name of the conviction, the date of the conviction, and the sentence for
the conviction.
2.

Evidence of “past rulings that do not pertain to this civil case” is excluded.

Baker does not oppose this portion of Plaintiff’s motion, and it is granted.
3.

Evidence of Plaintiff’s medical history that does not pertain to this case is

excluded.
Baker does not oppose this portion of Plaintiff’s motion, and it is granted.
II.

Defendant’s motion in limine.
1.

Prior court rulings or orders are inadmissible.

Baker is concerned that Plaintiff may seek to inform the jury of the Court’s previous
rulings or findings, particularly the Court’s denial of Baker’s summary judgment motion. The
Court’s previous rulings are simply legal determinations that are not appropriate to place in front
of the jury. They are not findings of fact. References to the Court’s previous rulings or findings
are improper and impermissible.
2.

Plaintiff’s self-representation is inadmissible.

The fact that Plaintiff does not have counsel is irrelevant to this case. No party shall
reference the fact that Plaintiff has not been appointed counsel and cannot afford to hire counsel.
3.

Any reference to Missouri’s Legal Expense Fund is impermissible.

Baker observes that a portion of any award of damages against Baker could be paid by
Missouri’s Legal Expense Fund (“LEF”), § 105.711 RSMo. While the LEF is not insurance, it is

2

analogous to insurance, and like insurance, it is irrelevant to the issues to be determined by the
jury. Accordingly, no party will introduce evidence of, make argument about, or otherwise refer
to the LEF.
4.

Information regarding settlement offers or discussions is inadmissible.

Rule 408 provides that offers to compromise and settlement discussions are not
admissible to prove liability or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or
contradiction. Although it is admissible for other, very limited purposes, the Court does not
anticipate that it will be admissible in this case. Consequently, no party will be permitted to refer
to offers to compromise or settlement discussions without first discussing the issue out of the
jury’s presence and receiving the Court’s express permission.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: October 18, 2011

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3