Vieira v. County of Sacramento

Background

The court issued final rulings on the parties’ motions in limine, which are pretrial requests to limit evidence or arguments at trial. The court noted that a ruling on such a motion may be revised during trial.

Vieira’s Motion

Vieira moved to exclude all evidence, references, and arguments concerning his convictions for stalking and brandishing. The court granted the motion in large part. Because the convictions resulted from no-contest pleas, they could not be admitted as proof that Vieira committed the underlying crimes or as evidence of his conduct during the interaction.

The court nevertheless ruled that the stalking conviction could be used for the limited purpose of challenging Vieira’s truthfulness under Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Counsel could ask Vieira whether he had been convicted of stalking, but could not phrase the question to suggest that the conviction arose from the same events. The misdemeanor brandishing conviction could not be used for this purpose.

The court also ruled that Vieira could not argue that his convictions were invalid or present a theory inconsistent with his criminal liability. If he presented a story inconsistent with an element of either conviction, the jury would be instructed to treat the conduct covered by that element as established in a prior proceeding.

Zalec’s Motions

Zalec’s motion to exclude Roger Clark’s testimony was granted. The court found Clark unqualified to reconstruct the shooting and found his method for determining Vieira’s arm position unreliable. The court also ruled that Clark could not testify about whether Zalec’s use of force was reasonable. Zalec was an off-duty police officer acting outside the scope of his employment, so the court applied the ordinary civilian standard for self-defense rather than the standard applicable to officers acting within their employment. The court stated that Clark’s testimony did not properly address that standard.

Zalec’s motion to exclude John Baker’s testimony was granted in part and denied in part. Baker was qualified to reconstruct the vehicle accident, and weaknesses in that portion of his opinion could be explored through cross-examination. But he was not qualified to reconstruct the shooting, and his shooting methodology was unreliable. His concealed-carry permit also did not qualify him to testify about whether Zalec’s use of force was reasonable.

Zalec’s motion to exclude Frank Diaz’s testimony was granted in part and denied in part. Diaz could not testify that Vieira’s convictions affected his earning capacity, that Vieira lost the opportunity to become a deputy sheriff because of the convictions, or that Zalec was responsible for civil damages arising from the convictions. Diaz could testify about how Vieira’s physical limitations from the gunshot wound affected his earning capacity. Zalec could challenge the basis for Diaz’s conclusions about workplace accommodations through cross-examination.

Zalec’s motion to exclude evidence and arguments claiming that the convictions resulted from a biased or improper investigation was largely granted. Vieira could not argue or testify that he acted in self-defense when brandishing the Tire Buddy, because that argument would conflict with an element of his conviction. If Vieira presented an account that effectively amounted to self-defense, the court would instruct the jury that a prior proceeding foreclosed that claim. Subject to those limits, Vieira could present his own account of the events because the rule at issue barred certain claims and theories, not all evidence about the events.

Zalec’s motion to exclude the medical bills was denied. The court found that Vieira’s failure to disclose the bills before the disclosure deadlines was substantially justified because no party had received them by those deadlines. However, California law required proof that the medical services were attributable to the injury, necessary, and reasonably priced. The court stated that Vieira had to provide an offer of proof addressing whether the treating physician would be qualified to testify that the charges were reasonable.

Disposition

The court granted Vieira’s motion in limine in large part; granted Zalec’s motion concerning Roger Clark; granted in part and denied in part Zalec’s motions concerning John Baker and Frank Diaz; largely granted Zalec’s motion concerning arguments about the convictions; and denied Zalec’s motion concerning the medical bills. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order on February 24, 2020.