Ramsay-Nobles v. Keyser

Background

This written decision addresses Plaintiff Julia Ramsay-Nobles’s motions in limine, which are requests to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be presented to the jury. The evidence concerns the death of Karl Taylor, Plaintiff’s decedent, and the conduct of Defendants, including Superintendent Keyser, Deputy Superintendent Burnett, and correctional-officer defendants.

Motion in Limine #1

The court granted Plaintiff’s request to exclude evidence about the nature of Taylor’s crimes of conviction, unless Plaintiff opened the door by claiming that Taylor was targeted because of a sexual-crime conviction. The court also granted Plaintiff’s request to exclude evidence of Taylor’s prison disciplinary history. The court said Defendants had not explained how that history was relevant to what happened to Taylor or to whether Defendants had justification for their conduct.

Motion in Limine #2

The court granted in part, denied in part, and reserved in part Plaintiff’s request to prevent the use of testifying inmates’ criminal convictions and prison disciplinary records for impeachment. Impeachment is the use of evidence to challenge a witness’s credibility. The court explained that felony convictions of non-party witnesses are generally presumed admissible for this purpose, subject to the balancing required by Federal Rules of Evidence 609 and 403. Convictions involving deceit or theft generally have greater relevance to truthfulness; violent crimes generally have less, although the details of a conviction can affect the analysis. Convictions more than 10 years old face a stricter admissibility standard under Rule 609(b).

The court made these rulings about the listed witnesses:

- Raymond Bird: Evidence of first-degree sexual abuse could not be used. The court reserved its ruling on attempted sale of contraband and third-degree burglary until it received more information about those crimes. - Vance Jackson: First-degree burglary and first-degree robbery could generally be used for impeachment, but first-degree assault could not. The court reserved its ruling on criminal possession of a weapon until it received more facts. - Gregory Judge: Evidence of both burglary convictions could be used. Evidence of first-degree manslaughter could not be used. - Stacy Liggan: Evidence of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree could not be used. The attempted-robbery convictions could be used. The court reserved its ruling on the weapon-possession and assault convictions until it learned more about the underlying incidents. - Steven Lovett: The old burglary and robbery convictions identified in the first group could not be used. The later-listed robbery convictions could be used, while the court reserved its ruling on the assault conviction. - Silburn Spence: The criminal-possession-of-a-weapon and attempted-possession convictions could be used for cross-examination. - Malik Thomas: The court reserved its ruling on the first-degree robbery conviction until it discussed the facts of the case before his testimony. - Kurtis Williams: The second- and third-degree burglary convictions could be used for impeachment.

The court did not rule on the use of the inmate witnesses’ disciplinary records because the parties had not provided enough information about particular incidents and their possible relevance to credibility.

Motion in Limine #3

The court denied Plaintiff’s request to exclude evidence of injuries allegedly suffered by correctional officers Tucker and Witte during the incident that led to Taylor’s death. The court held that the extent of those injuries relates to whether the officers’ actions in subduing Taylor were reasonable.

Motion in Limine #4

The court granted Plaintiff’s request to exclude the fact that a Sullivan County grand jury investigated the incident and returned no true bill against any Defendant. The court noted that the correctional-officer defendants consented to this relief. If grand jury testimony is used to impeach a witness based on a prior inconsistent statement, counsel may not identify it as “grand jury testimony.” Instead, counsel must ask about the witness’s earlier testimony in Sullivan County and read the relevant questions and answers in the format ordered by the court.

Motion in Limine #5

The court granted Plaintiff’s request to exclude factual findings and conclusions made by investigative bodies other than the Sullivan County grand jury. The court also ruled that investigative reports could not be used as such for impeachment. However, an individual prior inconsistent statement contained in an investigative report could be used for impeachment in the same question-and-answer format specified for prior testimony.

Disposition

The court entered the decision and order and directed the Clerk to remove Docket Nos. 343, 346, 349, 351, and 353 from the list of open motions.