Arnold, et al v. Curtis
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 218 Motion in Limine Regarding Evidence of Lorenzo Castillo's Status of Being in the United States. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 3/11/2011. (jtj)
-BCW Arnold, et al v. Curtis
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
VANESSA ARNOLD, Plaintiff, vs.
ORDER and MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case No. 2:04-cv-564 CW DEPUTY HAROLD "SKIP" CURTIS, a Utah County Sheriff's Deputy, Defendant.
Now before the court is Defendant Harold "Skip" Curtis's motion in limine to allow evidence that Mr. Castillo was purportedly1 in the United States illegally. (Dkt. No. 218). That motion is DENIED. Mr. Castillo's immigration status is irrelevant to the question of whether Mr. Curtis used excessive force or took actions shocking to the conscience against Ms. Arnold. Moreover, Ms. Arnold's purported motivations for her actions are also irrelevant to the question, unless her motivations were known to Mr. Curtis at the time of the incident and were something that he actually took into account in his interaction with her. Yet Mr. Curtis does not contend that Mr. Castillo's immigration status or Ms. Arnold's knowledge thereof was something that factored into his actions in this case. For the same reasons, the court will also not allow evidence of any supposed outstanding arrest warrant against Mr. Castillo. Mr. Curtis is hereby cautioned that if he, his witnesses or his counsel make an intentional reference, direct or indirect, to Mr. Castillo's immigration status at trial, he risks a mistrial. He and/or his counsel also run the risk of sanctions, the nature of which will be determined by what
Mr. Curtis's motion is unsupported by any evidence of this allegation against Mr.
occurs at trial. SO ORDERED this11th day of March, 2011. BY THE COURT:
____________________________________ Clark Waddoups United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?