The Brooklyn Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored…
The Brooklyn Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Kosinski
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-07667
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Brooklyn Branch v. Kosinski, Judge Failla denied testimony objections, granted one exhibit objection, and deferred three others.
The Brooklyn Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the State Board defendants. The order determines which challenged testimony and exhibits may be used, and leaves several exhibit-admissibility questions open.
What happened
The Brooklyn Branch of the NAACP v. Kosinski involved the State Board defendants’ request to limit evidence before the case proceeded. The Brooklyn Branch opposed the request, arguing that challenged testimony and exhibits were admissible or could be used for purposes other than proving the truth of statements in them.
The court denied the request concerning testimony from L. Joy Williams and Joan Alexander Bakiriddin. It found that the testimony fit exceptions for statements describing events as they happened and statements showing a person’s current state of mind; it also found that questions asked by voters were not hearsay statements. The court granted the request concerning Exhibit P-45 because one representative’s confusion about a law’s meaning had limited relevance. It reserved judgment on survey responses, documents from a separate lawsuit, and newspaper articles.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla accepted the State Board’s late motion for this instance, issued the rulings described above, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate motions at docket numbers 84, 87, and 97.
The detailed version
- The Brooklyn Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored… · No. 1:21-cv-07667
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 27, 2024
Background
The State Board defendants filed a motion in limine, meaning a request to decide evidentiary issues before the evidence is presented. The motion was untimely, but the court accepted it on this occasion. The State Board challenged testimony from L. Joy Williams and Joan Alexander Bakiriddin, survey responses in Exhibit P-24, Exhibit P-45, pleadings and affidavits from an unrelated lawsuit, and newspaper articles in Exhibits P-59 through P-63.
Rulings on the Evidence
The court denied the motion regarding the challenged testimony of Williams and Bakiriddin. It held that the objected-to statements were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1), which covers statements describing an event while or immediately after it occurs, and Rule 803(3), which covers statements showing the speaker’s then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition. The court also held that questions voters asked Bakiriddin were not hearsay because questions are not statements under Rule 801(a). The court stated that the testimony could also be considered for a non-hearsay purpose: showing that voters received a message from the Brooklyn NAACP’s activity.
The court granted the motion concerning Exhibit P-45. That exhibit contained a representative of Common Cause’s expression of confusion about the meaning of exceptions to Section 17-140. The court excluded it under Rule 401 because the confusion of one organization representative had limited relevance and usefulness to the court. The court said the Brooklyn Branch could make arguments about Section 17-140’s ambiguity, but the court would reach its own conclusions.
Reserved Issues and Disposition
The court reserved judgment on the admissibility of the survey responses, the pleadings and affidavits from a separate lawsuit, and the newspaper articles. It explained that the exhibits might be usable for non-hearsay purposes under Rule 801(c)(2), depending on how the statements were used in the Brooklyn Branch’s case. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motions at docket numbers 84, 87, and 97. The order did not resolve the admissibility of the three categories of exhibits on the merits.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.