Surface et al v. Conklin et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying 57 Motion in Limine signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 11/30/2018. (bjc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JEFFREY P. SURFACE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
OFFICER SCOTT CONKLIN,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:15-cv-40
Judge Timothy S. Black

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO VIEW THE AREAS OF POLO WOODS COURT AND
ST. ANDREWS COURT, FAIRFIELD, OHIO (Doc. 57)
This civil action is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to view the areas of Polo
Woods Court and St. Andrews Court, Fairfield, Ohio (Doc. 57), as well as the parties’
responsive memoranda. (Docs. 59, 69).
Here, Plaintiffs argue that a view of the scene is necessary to “provide the jury
with context in which to understand the evidence that will be introduced at trial.” (Doc.
57 at 2). Defendant does not directly oppose Plaintiffs’ motion, but informs the Court
that he intends to present photos and a recreation of events that will show the area in
substantial similarity to how the events occurred on the evening in question. (Doc. 59 at
1). Defendant requests, if the Court decides to permit a view of the site, that a courtroom
deputy point out certain important points at the scene in order to make the view helpful to
the jury.

1

District courts have an “inherent authority to manage the course of trials.” Luce v.
United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n. 4, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984). In this
Court’s opinion, a physical view of the scene is unnecessary. Photographs of the scene
from that night are available for both parties’ use and should provide the jurors with an
understanding of the context of the events at issue in this litigation. In fact, a physical
view of the scene may cause juror confusion if the weather conditions and lighting are
not substantially similar to the night in question. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is
denied because the Court finds that a view of the scene is unnecessary and may cause
juror confusion.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to view the areas
of Polo Woods Court and St. Andrews Court, Fairfield, Ohio (Doc. 57).1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:

11/30/18

s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

1

The Court views this Order to be similar to an in limine ruling, advisory in nature, such that the Court may alter
its ruling during the course of the trial. Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41-42 (1984).

2