Martin v. City of San Jose

Nature of the Order

This order addresses the parties’ amended exhibit lists, identified as Docket Nos. 87 and 89. It rules on evidentiary objections to exhibits offered by Andy Martin and the defendants. It is not a decision on the merits of the underlying dispute.

Rulings on Martin’s Exhibits

The court overruled Rule 403 objections to photographs of Martin’s injuries and scene photographs. Rule 403 allows exclusion of relevant evidence when its unfair prejudice or another listed danger substantially outweighs its value.

The court overruled relevance objections to excerpts from the police-duty manual, materials from the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, computer-aided dispatch materials, and portions of internal-investigation reports. The court deferred remaining hearsay and foundation objections to several of these exhibits. “Foundation” means the preliminary showing needed to establish that evidence is authentic and may properly be considered.

The court deferred rulings on two body-worn-camera videos because Martin had not identified the portions he sought to use. It also deferred rulings on medical records because Martin had not identified the portions of hundreds of pages he wanted to offer. The court stated that some records might qualify as business records, but that individual statements within them could still raise hearsay issues.

The court sustained hearsay objections to reports by Dr. Smith, including a rebuttal report, and to reports by Mr. Bard, Mr. Flower, and Mr. Johnson. It nevertheless allowed some of those reports to be used to refresh a witness’s recollection; the report by Mr. Flower could also be used to impeach. The court sustained the hearsay objection to Exhibits 3 and 4 from Dr. Smith’s rebuttal report, while deferring its ruling on an article concerning accident reconstruction.

For a pelvic-area exhibit used during Dr. Yun’s deposition, the court indicated that it would not sustain a relevance objection if the exhibit were used only as a demonstrative, and Martin had confirmed that limited use. A demonstrative is material used to illustrate testimony rather than offered as independent proof.

The court also stated that a body-worn-camera video could not be used to show an officer falsely telling a cousin that Martin admitted possessing a weapon or that a weapon had been found, unless the evidence became permissible for a limited purpose such as impeachment after the opposing party opened the issue.

Rulings on the Defendants’ Exhibits

For many defense exhibits, including dispatch recordings, body-worn-camera videos, scene photographs, medical-imaging materials, medical-record excerpts, and several still images and edited videos, the court recorded that there was no objection. The court overruled relevance and Rule 403 objections to certain computer-aided dispatch materials, and it overruled Rule 403 and hearsay objections to a certified transcript of the first six minutes of a dispatch recording. The court explained that the transcript was offered for its effect on Officer Ribeiro, not for the truth of the statements.

The court overruled relevance and Rule 403 objections to a crime-laboratory toxicology report and Lyft records, while deferring hearsay objections. It also overruled objections to plaintiff’s discovery responses concerning how many times Martin contended that Officer Ribeiro ran over him, and to a response concerning facts about whether Martin was running, evading police, or being pursued. Other objections were resolved by earlier rulings that this order references.

The court deferred hearsay objections to several traffic-collision and incident reports. It explained that some reports might qualify as public records or business records, or might contain statements by a party-opponent, but that statements within the reports could require separate analysis. Statements by Martin offered by Martin would be hearsay under the court’s stated analysis. The court also allowed certain documents to be used to refresh recollection or impeach.

Disposition and Effect

The order contains multiple evidentiary rulings: some objections were overruled, some were sustained, some were deferred, and some exhibits were identified as unopposed. The order does not state that the case was dismissed, that judgment was entered, or that any underlying claim was resolved. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order on May 6, 2021.