Harris v. City of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-10864
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Harris v. City of New York, Judge Schofield denied the request to exempt two police witnesses from sequestration, allowing only one courtroom representative.
The City of New York and its two proposed police witnesses, Officer Baltzer and Lieutenant Leon; the order also affects the conduct of Brian Harris’s trial.
What happened
In Harris v. City of New York, the City asked to keep two testifying police officers in the courtroom during trial instead of excluding them from hearing other witnesses. Brian Harris opposed the request, and the parties submitted written arguments.
The court explained that Federal Rule of Evidence 615 generally requires witnesses to be excluded from the courtroom so they cannot hear other testimony. The rule allows one representative for an organization and allows another person to remain only if that person’s presence is essential. The court said the rule’s text limits the organization-representative exception to one person. It also found that the City had not shown that Lieutenant Leon’s presence was essential, particularly because Harris had withdrawn the assault claim involving Leon.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the City’s request to exempt both Officer Baltzer and Lieutenant Leon. The court allowed either Baltzer or Leon to remain in the courtroom throughout the trial as the City’s designated representative; the other officer may not be present until testifying.
The detailed version
- Harris v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-10864
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 24, 2024
Background
At a January 16, 2024, pretrial conference, the City of New York asked to exempt two testifying police officers, Officer Baltzer and Lieutenant Leon, from witness sequestration. Sequestration is the practice of excluding witnesses from the courtroom so they cannot hear other witnesses’ testimony. Brian Harris opposed the request. The parties later submitted letters supporting their positions.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Evidence 615 generally requires the court to exclude witnesses from the courtroom when a party requests it. The rule contains exceptions, including one officer or employee of an organization who has been designated as the organization’s representative, and a person whose presence is shown to be essential to presenting a claim or defense.
The court explained that the organization-representative exception is limited to one person. Although the City relied on an earlier appellate decision stating that a trial court could allow more than one exemption under each part of the rule, the court noted that the rule had been amended in 2011 to expressly refer to “one officer or employee.” The amendment’s accompanying explanation also stated that the exception is limited to one designated representative per organization.
The court further found that the City had not shown that Lieutenant Leon’s presence throughout the trial was essential rather than merely desirable. Harris had withdrawn the assault claim, which was the only claim involving Leon. That withdrawal weakened the City’s argument that Leon needed to remain in the courtroom to discuss evidence concerning his own conduct.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that the City’s request to exempt both Officer Baltzer and Lieutenant Leon from sequestration under Rule 615 was denied. The order permits either Officer Baltzer or Lieutenant Leon to remain in the courtroom throughout the trial as the City’s designated representative under Rule 615(a)(2). The other officer may not be present in the courtroom until testifying.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.