Colson v. Mingo

Background

Ronald Colson and the defendants filed motions in limine, which are requests for advance rulings about evidence to be used at trial. The court explained that these rulings may change as the trial develops. The order decided some motions and reserved others for the final pretrial conference or trial.

Colson’s Motions

Prior convictions

Colson’s motion to exclude his prior convictions, other than the conviction for tampering with evidence, was granted in part and denied in part. The court excluded his 2013 convictions for assault, unlawful imprisonment, and robbery, and his 2016 convictions for murder, possession of a weapon, assault, promoting prostitution, and reckless endangerment. The court concluded that the violent convictions had little value for judging truthfulness and that their prejudicial effect outweighed their value. It also found that the promoting-prostitution conviction did not reflect on truthfulness or another relevant issue.

The court allowed the defendants to introduce the fact of Colson’s 2002 guilty plea for possessing a forged instrument, but not details of that conviction. The court reasoned that the conviction could be relevant to credibility, particularly alongside the evidence-tampering conviction, and that its prejudicial effect was lower. The court stated that the evidence-tampering conviction was admissible.

Alleged dishonesty

Colson’s motion to admit evidence of specific instances in which defendants or witnesses allegedly lied on government documents or under oath was granted with limitations. The court allowed questioning about specific conduct showing untruthfulness during cross-examination under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), but stated that outside evidence proving those instances would not be admitted unless admissible for another purpose.

Non-testifying incarcerated people

Colson’s motion to bar references to the fact that other incarcerated people did not testify was granted. The court found that such references would be unfairly prejudicial and stated that the jury would be instructed that Colson was not legally required to call every available witness.

Court-appointed monitor

The court reserved its ruling on Colson’s motion concerning evidence related to the court-appointed monitor until the final pretrial conference or immediately afterward.

Defendants’ Motions

Caption, defense counsel, the City of New York, and indemnification

The defendants’ motion to amend the caption, prevent Colson from calling their lawyers “City Attorneys,” and bar evidence of indemnification was granted. Their lawyers were to be referred to as attorneys from the Office of the Corporation Counsel, and the jury would be told that Corporation Counsel represents members of the Department of Correction.

The defendants’ motion to bar references to the City of New York was denied. The court stated that references to the City might be necessary during trial, including during jury selection, but prohibited unnecessary references or suggestions that the City was a party.

Specific damages amount

The defendants’ motion to prevent Colson from requesting a specific dollar amount from the jury was denied. Colson could suggest a specific amount for pain and suffering during closing argument, but had to provide that amount to the defendants beforehand. The defendants could propose a limiting instruction.

Dismissed or unpled claims

The defendants’ motion to exclude evidence about dismissed or unpled claims was granted in part and denied in part. Evidence relevant only to those claims was excluded, including evidence about Colson’s medical grievances before he boarded the bus. However, Colson could present evidence about his medical condition on the bus on the night of the incident to support his claimed harm. He could also testify about an alleged denial of medication to relieve his suffering while on the bus.

Injuries and expert testimony

The defendants’ motion to exclude evidence about injuries without expert proof of causation was denied. Colson could testify about the symptoms he experienced and when they occurred in relation to being sprayed with pepper spray. He could not give an opinion about whether the spray caused his injuries. The court stated that the lack of expert testimony concerned the weight the jury should give the evidence, rather than whether Colson could testify about his factual experiences.

Department of Correction policies

The defendants’ motion to exclude references to Department of Correction policies and directives was denied. The court found the policies relevant to issues including the connection between the use of chemical agents and Colson’s injuries, the credibility of defendants’ reports, and whether the force was used to maintain or restore order and was necessary. The court also stated that violating a Department of Correction policy alone would not establish a constitutional violation and that the defendants could propose a limiting instruction.

Former Assistant Deputy Warden Sharlisa Walker

The defendants’ motion to exclude testimony by former Assistant Deputy Warden Sharlisa Walker was denied. The court found her testimony relevant to the credibility of other testimony about the incident. If her testimony involved statements made outside court, those statements could not be used to prove the truth of what they asserted unless a hearsay exception applied. The same ruling applied to exhibit PX12 and related documents.

Current and former defense counsel

The defendants’ motion to exclude testimony by current and former defense counsel was granted because the work-product privilege protected that testimony. The court stated, however, that Corporation Counsel’s signatures on interrogatories were binding on the defendants and could be used as exhibits. The parties were directed to discuss possible stipulations concerning other documents.

Physical canisters and riot gear

The court reserved its ruling on the defendants’ motion to exclude physical canisters and riot gear until the final pretrial conference or immediately afterward.

Prior convictions

The defendants’ motion to introduce evidence of Colson’s prior convictions was denied, except that it was granted as to the evidence-tampering conviction and the possession-of-a-forged-instrument conviction, for the reasons stated in the ruling on Colson’s motion.

Disciplinary history and prior lawsuits

The defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of past disciplinary history and prior lawsuits was granted, subject to the exception for specific instances of alleged dishonesty that could be raised during cross-examination under Rule 608(b). The court found that disciplinary history and prior lawsuits involving use of force did not bear on credibility and would be unfairly prejudicial.

Unrelated Department of Correction actions and inflammatory language

The court reserved its ruling on the defendants’ motion concerning inflammatory language and references to unrelated Department of Correction actions until the final pretrial conference or immediately afterward.

Disposition

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke concluded that Colson’s motions in limine were granted in part and denied in part and that the defendants’ motions in limine were also granted in part and denied in part. The court directed that the remaining motions would be decided before trial and directed the clerk to terminate docket entries 255 and 264.