Colson v. Mingo

Nature of the order

This is a pretrial evidentiary and case-management order. The court reviewed submissions at ECF Nos. 278, 283, 284, 285, 286, and 288. It addressed questions about motions in limine, discovery representations, trial exhibits, judicial notice, monitoring evidence, and equipment. The order does not decide the underlying claims on their merits.

Rulings on motions in limine and trial evidence

- Plaintiff’s prior convictions: Defendants may not introduce evidence of the excluded convictions or the length of their sentences because that evidence would be unduly prejudicial. They may introduce only the fact of Colson’s 2002 guilty plea for criminal possession of a forged instrument, the fact of his 2016 conviction for tampering with evidence, and the fact that he remains incarcerated for felonies. - Defendants’ disciplinary histories: The court had already allowed Colson to ask witnesses on cross-examination about specific instances of untruthfulness. He may refer to the fact that the incidents involving false information involved use of force, although he may not explore the details or generally use outside evidence to prove those incidents. Defendant Daniels may explain during redirect examination what happened regarding his reporting of information he believed was accurate. Colson may raise that issue if he has a good-faith basis to believe it concerns Daniels’s truthfulness. - Specific dollar amount: Colson’s counsel must give notice of the specific dollar amount to be presented to the jury by 5:00 p.m. on the day before closing arguments. Defendants’ counsel may propose a limiting instruction, meaning an instruction restricting how the jury may use the information. - Department of Correction policies and testimony: The court had already ruled that Department of Correction directives, including the Chemical Agents Directive, are admissible and that the testimony of Assistant Deputy Warden Sharlisa Walker is permissible. The court will address issues concerning the document or testimony as they arise. - Interrogatory responses: The court had already ruled that the interrogatory responses are admissible. If defendants offer them at trial, they may request an instruction explaining that the responses were based on the defendants’ collective knowledge and information supplied by the Department of Correction. The court will decide at the time of use whether Colson may use the responses while cross-examining defendants Lake and Chopra and cautioned him to avoid needlessly cumulative evidence.

Discovery representations and stipulations

The court addressed several representations made during discovery, the pretrial exchange of information:

- Defendants represented that they had produced all documents in their possession, custody, or control related to the August 30–31, 2016 events at issue. If requested by counsel, the court intends to instruct the jury that both sides had to conduct a reasonable search and produce all relevant documents. The parties were directed to be prepared to discuss that proposed instruction on March 17, 2025, before trial. - Defendants represented that Officers Kevin Anderson and Cedric Carter were the officers who relieved Officer Munish Chopra and were the “unknown” escort officer. Defendants represented that this fact would not be disputed and that the officers would necessarily testify about it. If they did not, the court would invite a proposed instruction or consider revisiting its earlier decision excluding counsel’s testimony. - The court stated that exhibits PX 46–48 and PX 51 are not hearsay because they fall within a rule treating certain opposing-party statements as non-hearsay. If Colson sought to introduce those exhibits, the court would address the issue at that time.

Monitoring evidence and equipment

Colson is limited to eliciting the fact that personnel not affiliated with the city government or the Department of Correction monitored Department of Correction personnel, meaning that reports submitted by Department of Correction personnel were subject to review by those monitors. The parties may propose minor wording changes about the monitors’ procedures, but they may not refer to excessive force or other substantive issues in that evidence.

Defendants must make available the equipment they were able to acquire. If they could not safely bring empty MK-3 and MK-6 canisters to court, they must bring photographs accurately showing their sizes in relation to MK-4 and MK-9 canisters. Captain Ross’s mask may be handled only by Captain Ross. Defendants may not withdraw prior representations during trial; if they do, the court will invite a proposed instruction or consider revisiting its earlier decision excluding counsel’s testimony.

Judicial notice and exhibits

Judicial notice is a procedure allowing a court to accept certain facts or sources without requiring ordinary proof. The court will review the sources and dictionaries Colson brings on March 17, 2025, to confirm that their definitions are accurate and will decide whether to take notice as the requests become relevant during trial. The court will also decide as issues arise whether references to the Penal Code, and whether request 20, are relevant or unduly prejudicial.

Defendants’ reservation of objections to Colson’s exhibits was noted. Exhibits must be introduced with proper foundation, such as testimony from a witness who can explain them, unless an exception under the Federal Rules of Evidence applies.

Disposition and effect

The court issued the stated evidentiary and trial-management rulings. It left several questions for resolution during trial and did not enter a final merits ruling on the parties’ underlying claims.