Ramsay-Nobles v. Keyser
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:16-cv-05778
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ramsay-Nobles v. Keyser, Chief Judge McMahon disallowed the Corrections Officer Defendants’ late request to bring inmate Kurtis Williams to trial.
The ruling affected the Corrections Officer Defendants’ request to bring Kurtis Williams to court, while leaving the previously admitted deposition testimony in the trial record.
What happened
In Ramsay-Nobles v. Keyser, the plaintiff wanted inmate Kurtis Williams to testify at trial about the death of Karl Taylor. The court had previously allowed the parties to read Williams’s deposition testimony because obtaining his live testimony had become difficult.
The Corrections Officer Defendants later sought a new order to bring Williams from an Onondaga County facility to court. The request was filed late, without advance notice to the judge’s chambers, after the court had already decided that Williams’s deposition could be used and after that testimony had been read to the jury.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon disallowed the application. She found that bringing Williams to court would be duplicative, would not substantially advance the case, and could disrupt the ongoing trial.
The detailed version
- Ramsay-Nobles v. Keyser · No. 1:16-cv-05778
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 19, 2020
Background
The order concerns a request by counsel for the Corrections Officer Defendants for a writ of production—a court order directing a correctional facility to bring an incarcerated person to court to testify. The requested witness was Kurtis Williams, who was detained at the Onondaga County Correctional Facility. Williams had previously been incarcerated at Sullivan County Correctional Facility on April 13, 2015, when Karl Taylor, the plaintiff’s decedent, died there. Williams had been deposed and gave testimony relevant to the case.
The plaintiff had previously sought to have Williams testify live. The court issued a writ on January 15, 2020. On February 6, the plaintiff asked to cancel that writ after learning that Williams had been released from custody in Syracuse. The parties then planned to use portions of Williams’s deposition testimony. On February 13, the plaintiff’s counsel told the court that Williams had apparently been arrested again and was back in custody, but counsel planned to use the deposition rather than seek another writ. Counsel also reported that Williams had recently attempted suicide and was not mentally stable.
The Late Application
The court allowed the deposition testimony to be used over the Corrections Officer Defendants’ objection. The court explained that the trial was already well underway, that the upcoming holiday weekend left little time to arrange Williams’s transportation to New York City, and that there was not enough time to investigate his mental condition and reported suicide attempt adequately.
Williams’s deposition testimony was read to the jury, including the plaintiff’s designations and the Supervisor Defendants’ cross-designations. The Corrections Officer Defendants then filed an application on Friday, February 14, seeking to have Williams produced for testimony on February 18. The court said the application was filed too late to make producing Williams realistic and that counsel had not alerted chambers that the filing required immediate attention. By the time the judge learned of it, the plaintiff had rested.
Ruling
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon disallowed the application for the writ. The court stated that issuing a writ to bring an incarcerated witness to trial is committed to the court’s discretion. It concluded that the Corrections Officer Defendants would not be prejudiced because they had not indicated that they wanted Williams as their own witness, had had an opportunity to cross-examine him during his deposition, and could offer cross-designations.
The court also found that producing Williams would merely repeat testimony the jury had already heard. It would not substantially further resolution of the case and could disrupt a trial that was already running long. The court directed the Clerk to remove Docket No. 402 from the list of open motions if it appeared there.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.