Doe v. Old Forge Borough et al

Filing 399

ORDER THAT the Motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:1. Evidence of, and reference to, Defendants Semenza, Krenitsky, and Chiavacci's criminal nolle prossed charges are precluded. 2. Evidence of the criminal charges to which Krenitsky and Chiavacci pleaded guilty is not precluded. 3. Evidence of, and reference to, Defendants Krenitsky and Chiavacci's guilty pleas are not precluded. The admission of this evidence is limited to the facts and details specific to the c harges to which Krenitsky and Chiavacci pleaded guilty. 4. Evidence of, and reference to, Krenitsky's suspension and resignation from the Police Department are not precluded.5. Evidence of, and reference to, Semenza's acquittal, jury convic tions and the reversal of his convictions are precluded. 6. The Court defers ruling on the admissibility of evidence of, and reference to, Semenza's guilty plea to harassment. 7. Testimony offered at Semenza's criminal trial is excluded fro m the present trial. 8. This Court's ruling on the present motions that evidence of, and reference to, Defendants' nolle prossed charges and Semenza's acquittal and the reversal of his convictions will be precluded is subject to each o f the individual defendants opening the door with respect to that Defendant's nolle prossed charges and, in Semenza's case, his introduction of evidence of his acquittal and those convictions which were overturned. The Court's ruling i s also subject to the exception that if Semenza attempts to use any testimony from his criminal trial, this testimony may open the door to the presentation of evidence that Semenza stood trial for events relating toBurdyn, his acquittal on certain co unts, his conviction on the remaining counts, and evidence that his conviction was reversed on appeal.9. The Court notes that these rulings are all subject to revision upon the presentation of facts or arguments that present a basis for admission other than those advanced by the moving parties.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 1/26/17. (jfg)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NASTASHA BURDYN

Plaintiff,

v.

3:12·CV·2236
(JUDGE MARIANI)

OLD FORGE BOROUGH, et al.
Defendants.
ORDER
AND NOW, THISd

hYh DAY OF JANUARY, 2017, upon consideration of

Defendant Krenitsky's Motion in Limine to Exclude all Evidence of and Reference to
Defendant's Criminal Arrest, Charges, Resulting Suspension and Resignation, Guilty Plea,
and Nolle Prossed Charges (Doc. 249); Plaintiffs Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants
from Denying that Defendants Lawrence A. Semenza, James Krenitsky and Walter
Chiavacci Engaged in the Criminal Acts for Which they Pleaded Guilty (Doc. 257); and
Defendant Semenza's Motion in Limine to Exclude all Evidence of and Reference to
Defendant's Criminal Arrest, Charges, Resulting Suspension and Resignation, Guilty Plea,
Reversal, Acquittals, and Nolle Prossed Charges (Doc. 263), for the reasons set forth in the
accompanying memorandum opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Motions are

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. Evidence of, and reference to, Defendants Semenza, Krenitsky, and Chiavacci's
criminal nolle prossed charges are precluded.

2. Evidence of the criminal charges to which Krenitsky and Chiavacci pleaded guilty is

not precluded.
3. Evidence of, and reference to, Defendants Krenitsky and Chiavacci's guilty pleas are
not precluded. The admission of this evidence is limited to the facts and details
specific to the charges to which Krenitsky and Chiavacci pleaded guilty.
4. Evidence of, and reference to, Krenitsky's suspension and resignation from the
Police Department are not precluded.
5. Evidence of, and reference to, Semenza's acquittal, jury convictions and the reversal
of his convictions are precluded.
6. The Court defers ruling on the admissibility of evidence of, and reference to,
Semenza's guilty plea to harassment.
7. Testimony offered at Semenza's criminal trial is excluded from the present trial.
8. This Court's ruling on the present motions that evidence of, and reference to,
Defendants' nolle prossed charges and Semenza's acquittal and the reversal of his
convictions will be precluded is subject to each of the individual defendants opening
the door with respect to that Defendant's nolle prossed charges and, in Semenza's
case, his introduction of evidence of his acquittal and those convictions which were
overturned. The Court's ruling is also subject to the exception that if Semenza
attempts to use any testimony from his criminal trial, this testimony may open the
door to the presentation of evidence that Semenza stood trial for events relating to

2

Burdyn, his acquittal on certain counts, his conviction on the remaining counts, and
evidence that his conviction was reversed on appeal.
9. The Court notes that these rulings are all subject to revision upon the presentation of
facts or arguments that present a basis for admission other than those advanced by
the moving parties.

3