Johnson v. County of Santa Clara

Background

The court expanded on oral rulings made at a pretrial conference concerning Andrew Lee Johnson’s four motions in limine and the defendants’ seven motions in limine. A motion in limine asks the court to decide before trial whether particular evidence or arguments may be presented to the jury. The remaining claims include a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged unconstitutional suppression of audio interview evidence under the rule commonly called Brady, a related conspiracy claim, and related failure-to-investigate and failure-to-train claims under the doctrine known as Monell.

The court stated that the trial would be divided into a liability phase and, if necessary, a damages phase. The court’s discussion identifies Phase I as the liability phase and Phase II as the damages phase. The numbered order, however, refers to both phases as “Phase II.”

Johnson’s Motions

1. Expunged misdemeanor evidence — granted. The court found that evidence concerning Johnson’s expunged cocaine-possession misdemeanor was not relevant to the remaining issues and that its potential prejudice substantially outweighed any relevance. Johnson’s Motion in Limine No. 1 was granted.

2. Firearm legality — granted. The court found that whether Johnson legally possessed or carried the firearm was not relevant to the remaining trial issues. The fact that a firearm was used to injure two individuals could be addressed, but evidence about the legality or illegality of possessing or carrying it was excluded as unduly prejudicial and likely to cause confusion and delay. Johnson’s Motion in Limine No. 2 was granted.

3. Traumatic brain injury and suicide — deferred. Johnson sought to exclude discussion that his traumatic brain injury resulted from a suicide attempt. The court explained that the evidence at issue was relevant only to damages and deferred resolution of Motion in Limine No. 3 until the damages phase, if that phase is reached. The opinion states that the defendants agreed that suicide need not and would not be discussed, while arguing that the injury itself was relevant to damages.

4. Timing and content of Johnson’s self-defense claim — denied in part and granted in part. The court denied the motion in part to the extent it sought to prevent the defendants from introducing evidence about what police and prosecutors knew regarding any self-defense claim before and during the preliminary hearing. The court granted the motion in part by barring evidence that Johnson did not call the police after the shooting and that he told police he was not involved in the shooting. The court found those matters had low relevance to the Brady issues and that their potential prejudice, delay, and tendency to confuse the jury substantially outweighed their relevance.

Defendants’ Motions

1. Length of incarceration — granted in part and deferred in part. The court granted the motion in part as to the liability phase, ruling that Johnson could present relevant timeline evidence but could not introduce the fact that he was incarcerated during that period. The court deferred the question of whether the evidence could be relevant to damages until the damages phase.

2. Conditions of confinement — deferred. Because evidence about alleged jail abuse or substandard conditions concerned damages, the court deferred Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 until the damages phase.

3. Johnson’s acquittal — denied. The court denied the motion seeking to exclude evidence that Johnson was found not guilty at trial. The opinion states that the denial was without prejudice to the parties proposing a special jury instruction or modified neutral statement addressing the acquittal.

4. Issues resolved for defendants at summary judgment — granted. The court excluded evidence or argument about matters already resolved in the defendants’ favor at summary judgment, including key-fob data and other issues concerning alleged fabrication, disclosure failures, probable cause, and certain city policies or customs. The court concluded that such matters were not relevant to the remaining claims, including the narrower remaining Monell claim concerning preservation or disclosure of the Department of Children and Families audio evidence at issue in the Brady claim.

5. Unidentified damages categories — granted. Johnson did not oppose exclusion of evidence about damages categories, such as alleged lost income or medical bills, that he had not identified in his initial disclosures. The court granted the motion.

6. Evidence not presented at the preliminary hearing — denied in part and otherwise granted. The court denied the motion in part so that Johnson could testify that he would have made a self-defense claim at the preliminary hearing if he had known about the missing audio files. The court otherwise granted the motion.

7. Three witnesses — denied as moot in part and denied without prejudice in part. Johnson removed Angela Johnson from his witness list, so the motion was denied as moot with respect to her. The court otherwise denied the motion without prejudice as to Judy Lee and Cameron Bowman. The court encouraged Johnson to obtain and provide declarations describing their proposed testimony, and it allowed the defendants to raise the issue later if necessary.

Disposition and Effect

The order governed the presentation of evidence and arguments at the upcoming trial. It did not decide whether the defendants were liable on Johnson’s remaining claims. The final order states that Johnson’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 2 were granted; Motion No. 3 was deferred; and Motion No. 4 was denied in part and granted in part. It states that Defendants’ Motions Nos. 1 and 2 were deferred to the damages phase, Motion No. 3 was denied, Motions Nos. 4 and 5 were granted, Motion No. 6 was denied in part and otherwise granted, and Motion No. 7 was denied as moot as to Angela Johnson and otherwise denied without prejudice as to Judy Lee and Cameron Bowman.