Hunter v. United States of America
- 7:18-cv-07377
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hunter v. United States, the court denied Hunter’s motion in limine without prejudice as premature.
Peter Hunter and the United States in the pending civil trial, as well as the proposed witness Jeffrey Spina, because the court left the evidence issue for a later decision.
What happened
In Hunter v. United States, Peter Hunter asked the court to bar references to Jeffrey Spina’s alleged criminal activity, indictment, and guilty plea during trial. Hunter argued that Spina had not yet been sentenced and that the evidence could unfairly prejudice the jury.
The court did not decide whether the evidence was admissible. Instead, it denied Hunter’s motion in limine without prejudice as premature, explaining that trial-related issues would be better addressed closer to trial, particularly because Spina’s sentencing date was April 1, 2021.
The order in Hunter v. United States was entered by the court; the judge’s name is not legible in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Hunter v. United States of America · No. 7:18-cv-07377
- Apr. 5, 2021
Background
Peter Hunter’s case arose from a November 2, 2016, rear-end collision involving Ronald Deser, whom the opinion identifies as an employee of the United States’ Post Office. Hunter alleged that the collision caused his injuries and that he received medical treatment after the accident.
Hunter stated that Jeffrey Spina, a chiropractor at Dolson Avenue Medical, and four co-defendants were indicted on August 29, 2018, for alleged health-insurance fraud. The opinion states that Spina pleaded guilty on July 26, 2019, to conspiracy to commit health-care fraud, health-care fraud, and obstruction of a federal audit, but had not yet been sentenced when Hunter filed the motion.
Motion in Limine
The United States sought to call Spina as a witness at trial. Hunter moved to bar testimony or other evidence concerning Spina’s alleged criminal activity, indictment, and guilty plea. A motion in limine is a request to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be presented to the jury.
Hunter relied on Federal Rule of Evidence 609, which addresses using certain criminal convictions to challenge a witness’s credibility, and Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which permits exclusion when unfair prejudice or confusion substantially outweighs the evidence’s usefulness. He argued that Spina had not been sentenced, that his guilty plea was not yet a conviction for purposes of Rule 609, and that evidence of the criminal matter could confuse the jury and unfairly harm Hunter. He also argued that there was no evidence connecting Spina’s criminal activity to the handling of Hunter’s medical records.
Ruling
The court denied Hunter’s motion in limine without prejudice as premature. The court stated that it was more appropriate to resolve trial-related issues closer to the trial date, particularly given Spina’s April 1, 2021, sentencing date.
The provided text does not show that the court finally decided whether Spina’s indictment, guilty plea, or other criminal-activity evidence would be admissible at trial. The judge’s name is not legible in the provided copy.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.