Binkley v. Rendell et al

Filing 132

MEMORANDUM re pltf's MOTION in Limine 113 filed by Terry Binkley (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 03/31/14. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TERRY BINKLEY,
Plaintiff
v.
MICK BREUNINGER,
Unit Manager of F Block; and
CAPTAIN ZACKARACKIS,
Captain of Security,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-10-01245
(Judge Rambo)

MEMORANDUM
Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude the presentation
of evidence of any misconduct reports involving Plaintiff, Terry Binkley, past crimes of
inmate witnesses, and convictions of Binkley. The motion has been briefed and is ripe
for disposition. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted in part and
denied in part.
I.

Background
Binkley is incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution at Dallas,

Pennsylvania and was so incarcerated on July 20, 2009. Binkley was assaulted by his
cell mate, Scott Sechrist, on July 20, 2009. Binkley claims that Defendants Breuninger
and Zackarackis were aware that Sechrist had a history of assaultive behavior and that his
placement in a cell with Sechrist posed an excessive risk of harm to him and that
Defendants were aware of that risk. After Binkley was assaulted by Sechrist, he filed a
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment
right.

II.

Discussion
A.

Misconduct Proceedings

Binkley claims that any misconduct reports unrelated to the incident of July 20,
2009 are irrelevant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 401 and inadmissible under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 402 and 403. This court agrees that the misconduct
reports against Binkley and any of his witnesses are irrelevant and the introduction of the
reports would likely cause confusion of the issues in this case and undue trial delay. The
motion will be granted on this issue.
B. Past Crimes of Inmate Witnesses
In determining whether or not to preclude past criminal conduct of witnesses,
this court must weigh the considerations addressed by Federal Rules of Evidence 609 and
403, i.e. balancing the probative value of the past criminal conduct with the prejudicial
affect on the trial proceedings. It is without doubt that credibility is an important issue in
this case. The purpose of Federal Rule of Evidence 609 is its availability for impeaching
witnesses with the fact of prior felony convictions. Evidence that may be probative,
however, may also be prejudicial. In Coleman v. Home Depot, Inc., 306 F.3d 1333 (3d
Cir. 2002), the court stated that “the prejudicial effect of admitting the evidence must rise
to the level of creating an unfair advantage for one of the parties for the evidence to be
excluded under Rule 403.” Id. at 1343 n.6.
Both potential witnesses of Binkley are incarcerated for first degree murder and
are serving life sentences. This past criminal history is highly prejudicial. However, the
following question can be presented to the witnesses as follows: “On [date], were you not
convicted of a felony for which you received a sentence exceeding one year and for
which you are still serving?” Any reference to murder will be precluded. There will be
no inquiry into the facts of the crimes.

C. Past Criminal History of Binkley
The aforesaid discussion regarding the balancing of Federal Rules of Evidence
609 and 403 apply here. The crimes of endangering the welfare of a child and sexual
abuse of a child are prejudicial. However, the inquiry can be adjusted as follows: “On
[date], were you not convicted of various assault charges which included aggrevated
indecent assault and sexual assaults and were you sentenced to a term of [length of
term]?” There will be no inquiry into the facts of the crimes.
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Binkley’s motion in limine will be granted in part

and denied in part. An appropriate order will be issued.

s/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: March 31, 2014.