Rosado v. Soriano
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:16-cv-03310
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rosado v. Soriano, Judge Abrams barred evidence of later criminal proceedings as irrelevant and potentially confusing in Rosado’s excessive-force trial.
Edward Rosado and Police Officer Amaury Soriano in the upcoming excessive-force trial; both parties were barred from presenting evidence about criminal charges or proceedings involving Rosado after his arrest.
What happened
Edward Rosado claimed that Police Officer Amaury Soriano used excessive force during Rosado’s May 4, 2013 arrest. After the arrest, the Bronx District Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute Rosado. Before trial, Soriano asked the court to prevent Rosado from telling the jury that he was not charged or prosecuted.
The court found that the decision not to prosecute had little value in deciding whether Soriano’s use of force was reasonable. The court also found a serious risk that the evidence would confuse the jury or suggest that the prosecutor’s decision answered the question the jury had to decide.
Judge Abrams granted Soriano’s motion. She barred both sides from presenting evidence or testimony about criminal charges or proceedings involving Rosado after the arrest and said the jury would consider only whether the force used during the encounter was reasonable.
The detailed version
- Rosado v. Soriano · No. 1:16-cv-03310
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 10, 2021
Background
Trial was scheduled to begin on August 11, 2021, on Edward Rosado’s claim that Police Officer Amaury Soriano used excessive force during Rosado’s arrest in the Bronx on May 4, 2013. After the arrest, the Bronx District Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute Rosado.
Soriano moved to prevent Rosado from testifying that he was not criminally charged or prosecuted. Rosado also offered an affidavit supporting the decision not to prosecute.
Court’s Analysis
The court ruled that the affidavit was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. That rule permits exclusion of relevant evidence when its value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice or confusing the jury.
The court found that the affidavit had, at most, slight value because whether Rosado committed a crime did not directly determine whether the force Soriano used was excessive. The court also found a real danger that the jury would treat the District Attorney’s decision not to charge Rosado as a conclusion about the factual issue the jury had to decide: whether Soriano’s use of force was reasonable.
The court applied the same reasoning to testimony about Rosado’s prosecution. The fact that excessive force is impermissible even during a lawful arrest meant that the decision whether to bring criminal charges did not determine the excessive-force claim. The court stated that the jury could assess the seriousness of the conduct based on testimony from witnesses to the May 4 encounter. It further explained that the excessive-force inquiry depends on the circumstances known to the officer immediately before and when the officer used force, not on actions taken by law-enforcement agencies afterward.
Ruling
The court granted Soriano’s motion. Both parties were barred from offering testimony or evidence about any criminal charges or proceedings—or the absence of such charges or proceedings—that were initiated against Rosado after his arrest. The court stated that it would instruct the jury that the only issue was whether the force used during the May 4, 2013 encounter was reasonable, and that Rosado’s charging or prosecution history had no bearing on that question.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.