DIAZ v. BODNAY et al

Filing 67

ORDER THAT PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXCLUDUE (DOC. NO. 50) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE (DOC. NO. 51) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE (DOC. NO. 49) IS GRANTED. PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE (DOC. NO. 47) IS GRANTED. PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE (DOC. NO. 48) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS N. ONEILL, JR ON 5/28/13. 5/28/13 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 10-5939

ISRAEL DIAZ
V.

SERGEANT WILLIAM ABERTS
OFFICER RODNEY SIMIONE

ORDER

AND NOW this 28th day of May, 2013, upon consideration of the five motions in limine
brought by plaintiff Israel Diaz (Dkt. Nos. 47-51) and defendant Sergeant William Aberts and
Officer Rodney Simione's responses thereto (respectively, Dkt. Nos. 57-61), it is ORDERED
that:
1) Diaz's motion to exclude evidence ofDiaz's prior prison conduct (Dkt. No. 50) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Diaz's alleged prior conduct or discipline
while incarcerated is admissible pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) only to
the extent:
a. That the conduct involved violence or threats of violence toward other
inmates or staff, and defendants and/or nonparty corrections officer witnesses
had personal knowledge of such before the May 14, 2012 incident.
b. Such evidence is admitted only for the limited purpose of establishing
defendants' knowledge and state of mind on May 14, 2010 before they
applied force against Diaz.
c. Extrinsic evidence ofDiaz's prior prison misconduct is not admissible but
specific instances may on cross-examination be inquired into if they are
probative ofDiaz's character for truthfulness. Fed. R. Evid. 608.

2) Diaz's motion to exclude evidence ofDiaz's prior criminal convictions (Dkt. No. 51)
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
a. Defendants and the nonparty corrections officers are precluded from testifying
or offering extrinsic evidence ofDiaz's prior convictions pursuant to Federal
Rule of Evidence 404(b) because they lacked personal knowledge of those
convictions on or prior to May 14, 2010 and thus no proper purpose exists for
admitting them as evidence.
b. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 609:
1.

Diaz's prior conviction for false identification to law enforcement is
admissible against Diaz, should he testify, for the purpose of attacking
Diaz's character for truthfulness. Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(2).

n. Diaz's other prior convictions are not admissible to attack Diaz's
character for truthfulness because the risk of prejudice to Diaz
substantially outweighs the probative value of them as to Diaz's
character for truthfulness. Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(2); Fed. R. Evid. 403.
3) Diaz's motion to exclude evidence of Defendants' prior good acts, employment
disciplinary records or involvement in prior lawsuits (Dkt. No. 49) is GRANTED.
4) Diaz's motion to preclude any comments by defense counsel or questioning of
defendants regarding defendants' feelings about being sued at trial (Dkt. No. 47) is
GRANTED.
5) Diaz's motion to preclude any "Golden Rule" comments (Dkt. No. 48) is DENIED.

~\f\,o·~
THOMAS N. O'NEILL, JR., J.
2