Cho v. City Of San Jose

Background

The court addressed the parties’ motions in limine, which are requests to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be admitted, along with other disputes about presenting evidence. The order concerns a case involving an incident in which officers arrested Cho and allegedly used force. The order itself addresses evidence and trial procedures rather than deciding the underlying claims.

Cho’s motions concerning criminal history

The court granted in part and denied in part Cho’s motions seeking to exclude evidence of his criminal history and prior contacts with law enforcement.

The court ruled that evidence of Cho’s four felony convictions within the previous 10 years—three for possessing a stolen vehicle and one for possessing marijuana with intent to distribute—qualified for admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1)(A), subject to the rule allowing exclusion for unfair prejudice. The court found that Cho had not shown that the convictions’ value for evaluating his truthfulness was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. However, the court said the record was not developed enough to decide whether later findings or proceedings might make any conviction inadmissible under Rule 609(c). The parties were directed to confer and bring any dispute to the court before defendants offered a disputed conviction to the jury.

The court said admissible conviction evidence should generally be limited to the offense name, conviction date and place, and sentence. It suggested that the parties stipulate to those matters. Cho could also propose a jury instruction limiting the purpose for which the jury could consider the convictions.

The court allowed evidence that Cho was on supervised release and knew of a pending criminal charge. The defendants offered that evidence to show Cho may have had a motive to resist arrest and to help the jury evaluate his testimony about whether he resisted. The court found the evidence admissible for that purpose. The court did not rule on whether evidence that Cho was found with methamphetamine would be admissible because Cho had not moved to exclude it; the parties were directed to confer and advise the court whether a ruling was needed.

The court ruled that defendants could not use Cho’s criminal history or prior law-enforcement contacts to argue that he did not suffer emotional distress because he had recently reformed his conduct. The court found that the danger of unfair prejudice outweighed the evidence’s value for that purpose.

Defendants’ motion concerning other uses of force

The defendants’ motion to exclude evidence about other uses of force, including the incident referred to as the Marin matter, was granted. Cho had dismissed his claims against the City of San Jose based on inadequate training, so the parties agreed that an expert’s opinion relying on other uses of force was no longer relevant to that theory. Cho also said he did not intend to introduce certain internal-affairs investigations or lawsuits or to question a defense expert about an unrelated case unless the expert opened the door.

The court specifically excluded evidence of the Marin matter involving officers Rodriguez and Moran. Although the court found that the proposed video and testimony were intended to address a material point and were close in time, the facts of that matter were vigorously disputed. The court concluded that the evidence’s value was substantially outweighed by the risk that the jury would treat it as showing a tendency to act improperly and by the risk of creating a separate trial about the Marin incident.

Other officers’ body-camera videos

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion concerning testimony about another officer’s body-camera video. Cho could not ask a defendant officer to interpret video of events the officer did not observe or to give an opinion about whether conduct shown in the video was proper. Cho could use any body-camera video to refresh a defendant’s recollection or impeach the defendant’s testimony. He could also use any such video to cross-examine an expert about the expert’s opinions.

Dismissal of Cho’s criminal case

The court granted the unopposed motion to exclude evidence that the charges against Cho arising from the incident had been dismissed.

Cross-examination of defense expert Robert Fonzi

Officer Rodriguez sought to bar Cho from questioning defense expert Robert Fonzi about opinions Fonzi had given in other police-shooting cases. The court ruled that the proposed questioning was proper to explore Fonzi’s possible bias. The court found that prior opinions about deadly force were not so unrelated to this case, which involved alleged baton strikes, as to be irrelevant, and it found the questioning not unfairly prejudicial so long as counsel did not dwell on details of unrelated cases.

Other evidence and witness rulings

The court denied, without prejudice to resubmission if testimony were needed during a possible second trial phase, the defendants’ request to let Officer Moran testify by remote video conference during the first phase. Cho could call only one of the three listed paramedics. The court denied the Rule 403 objection to Exhibit 109, subject to renewal if the exhibit became unduly cumulative; resolved the objection to Exhibit 201 through the motion-in-limine ruling; and reserved ruling on Exhibit 202.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it resolves pretrial evidence and witness issues without deciding the parties’ underlying claims.