Harris v. City of New York

Background

Before trial, Brian Harris and the City of New York filed motions in limine, which are requests to decide in advance what evidence or arguments may be presented to the jury. The order resolved the parties’ motions filed on August 28, 2023.

Rulings

- Harris’s motion about his son’s criminal history — granted. The court barred the City from introducing evidence of Harris’s son’s criminal record, arrests, convictions, or prior bad acts. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the court found that the proposed relevance of the evidence was weak and outweighed by the risk that the jury could unfairly judge Harris because of his son. - The City’s motion I and Harris’s cross-motion — both granted. The City’s unopposed request to bar Harris from commenting on why individual officers were not defendants was granted. Harris’s cross-motion to bar the City from suggesting that the individual officers had not committed a constitutional violation or had been cleared was also granted. The court further ordered that neither side refer to the court’s prior rulings in evidence or argument. - The City’s motion II — denied. The court allowed Harris to offer evidence concerning the New York City Police Department Patrol Guide because it was relevant to whether the force used was objectively reasonable. The City could propose a limiting jury instruction, and the parties were directed to try to agree on one. - The City’s motion III — denied. The court allowed Harris to testify about what he felt and personally observed about his physical condition, including that he fell during the arrest, how he fell in relation to his wrist, and how his wrist felt afterward. Although disputed, Harris could also testify to his common-sense view that he injured his wrist during the arrest. The court stated that expert testimony was not required for that inference to be admissible. Harris could testify about his treatment by Dr. Rosenbaum, the diagnostic procedures, the diagnosis being made, and his decision to have surgery. Harris could not state the diagnosis himself or repeat Dr. Rosenbaum’s statements, because the court found those statements hearsay, cumulative, and potentially confusing when presented by a lay witness. - The City’s motion IV — denied. The court allowed Dr. Rosenbaum to testify. The jury would decide whether the evidence connected his treatment of Harris’s injury to the events at issue. - The City’s motion V — denied. The court declined to separate liability and damages into different trial phases because the evidence overlapped. The City could propose a corrective instruction addressing any risk of improper sympathy. - The City’s motion VI — denied. The court declined to instruct the jury that Harris’s arrest was lawful, finding such an instruction unnecessary and potentially prejudicial. The jury would instead be told that the issue was not whether the arrest was lawful. - The City’s motion VII — granted. Because it was unopposed, the court barred Harris from asking about officers’ disciplinary histories. - The City’s motion VIII — granted. The court barred argument about unrelated police actions. Harris also could not argue that the jury should send a message or address general issues concerning police conduct or misconduct. - The City’s motion IX — denied. The court declined, as a matter of judicial discretion, to bar Harris from suggesting a dollar amount to the jury except when the amount was supported by non-speculative evidence. The City could request a limiting instruction.

Disposition and Effect

The order granted and denied the motions as specified above and permitted the parties to submit proposed limiting or corrective instructions before the final pretrial conference if they could not agree. The Clerk was directed to record only the order’s summary paragraph on the docket and close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 91 and 93. This order addressed trial procedure and evidence; it did not resolve the merits of Harris’s claims.