Torres v. Hansen

Background

The court held a final pretrial conference on June 25, 2024, before a planned jury trial. The trial concerned only Torres’s Fourth Amendment claim that Officer Hansen used excessive force after entering Torres’s apartment and before Torres was handcuffed. Torres was representing himself, and Hansen was represented by counsel.

The opinion states that a jury at a November 2023 trial found against Torres on three other claims: that Officers Hansen and Smith illegally entered the apartment; that Officer Smith used excessive force after entering; and that Officer Hansen used excessive force after Torres was handcuffed in the apartment’s dining-room area. The jury in the upcoming trial will be instructed that the officers had the right to enter the apartment and that Officer Smith did not use excessive force. If necessary, the jury will also be instructed that Hansen did not use excessive force after Torres was handcuffed.

The court excluded from the trial claims that had already been dismissed, including claims that transcripts from Torres’s criminal case were doctored. Torres also could not argue that Smith used excessive force in the fingerprinting room because the court stated that the claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey. The opinion says that a final judgment will be entered at the end of the case and that the parties may appeal then.

Trial procedures and evidence

The court set a four-day trial. Each side could use up to 25 minutes for opening statements, six total hours to present evidence, and 30 minutes for closing argument. The court would not permit repetitive or cumulative examination, or examination about irrelevant matters or issues no longer part of the trial.

The order provided for eight jurors and three peremptory challenges for each side. It set procedures for reviewing jury questionnaires and conducting questioning of prospective jurors. Each party had to identify expected witnesses by 5 p.m. on the preceding day, and witnesses not listed could not testify without the court’s permission. The listed witnesses were Mario Torres, Officer Mike Hansen, Officer Daniel Smith, Betty Zierke, Alyse Plumley, and Esteban Duque, whom Torres alone planned to call. The opinion states that Torres would be responsible for producing witnesses who were not also on the defense list and for obtaining a trial subpoena if an unwilling witness would not appear voluntarily.

The expected exhibits included a 911 call; redacted police reports; use-of-force reports; incident-detail reports; the use-of-force policy; training logs; and photographs taken on July 4, 2012. The court again ruled that Torres’s Kaiser records from a July 6, 2012 office visit were inadmissible because they had not been provided during discovery. The court also stated that, even if Torres could authenticate them, their relevance was substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

The court would not allow exhibits related to Torres’s state-court criminal proceedings, including the felony complaint, preliminary-hearing transcript, abstract of judgment, or parole papers. It generally would not allow Torres to introduce his own court filings as evidence. Defense counsel would need the court’s permission to use such documents for impeachment.

Motions and rulings

The court DENIES defendants’ motion for judgment on partial findings before trial, docket number 297. The court concluded that entering partial judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) before trial would not promote judicial efficiency. Instead, it would address possible jury confusion through the instructions described in the order.

The court also ADOPTS the rulings on motions in limine from its prior final pretrial order. Those rulings were:

- Torres’s motion number 1 to exclude recordings and transcripts from an August 2018 deposition was GRANTED IN PART. Defendants could use the deposition only for impeachment. - Defendants’ motion number 1 to exclude evidence of negative personnel or background information involving Smith and Hansen was GRANTED because the matters were irrelevant to the claims being tried. - Defendants’ motion number 2 to exclude evidence or questions about other police matters involving excessive or deadly force was GRANTED because the matters were irrelevant and the evidence would be unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403. - Defendants’ motion number 3 to exclude evidence about alleged unlawful conduct by Smith at the Concord Police Department station, including alleged missing jail-camera recordings, was GRANTED. The court stated that those claims were barred by Heck, that there was no evidence of missing recordings, and that Smith was no longer a defendant. - Defendants’ motion concerning evidence that Smith testified untruthfully at Torres’s criminal preliminary hearing was GRANTED because the matters were irrelevant and the related claims had been dismissed. The court again noted that Smith was no longer a defendant. - Defendants’ motion number 5 to exclude evidence about injuries or damages unrelated to Torres’s July 2012 arrest incident was GRANTED because those matters were irrelevant to the remaining claims.

Disposition and effect

This was a final pretrial order governing the remaining jury trial, not a decision on whether Hansen used excessive force. The court DENIES defendants’ motion for judgment on partial findings, ADOPTS the prior motions-in-limine rulings, and sets the trial’s scope, schedule, evidence, witnesses, and presentation limits.

The opinion contains an apparent date inconsistency: the order’s title and surrounding text refer to jury selection beginning July 8, 2024, while one later paragraph says July 8, 2023. The supplied text does not explain the discrepancy.