Rawlings v. Hall ( 2011 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
CHARLES RAWLINGS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 07-1914 (PLF)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on a motion in limine filed by defendants Anthony
Clay, James Haskel, and the District of Columbia to exclude evidence of Officer Haskel’s
involvement in two prior off-duty shootings. Upon consideration of the parties’ papers, the
relevant legal authorities, and the record in this case as a whole, the Court has granted the
defendants’ motion.1
The defendants seek an order, pusuant to FED . R. EVID . 404(b), “prohibiting
Plaintiff from mentioning at any stage of the trial — opening statement, direct examination of
any witness, cross-examination of any witness, or closing argument — and from introducing any
documentary or testimonial evidence that Officer Haskel was involved in two prior off-duty
shootings.” Mot. at 2.
1
The documents reviewed by the Court include the following: Defendants’ Revised
Second Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 120) (“Mot.”); Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Revised
Second Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 141) (“Opp.”); Defendants’ Response to Court Order
Regarding Revised Motions in Limine (Dkt. No. 149).
Rule 404(b) provides that “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not
admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.”
FED . R. EVID . 404(b). Such evidence may be admissible “for other purposes, such as proof of
motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or
accident.” Id.
The Court applies a two-step analysis to determine the admissibility of other
crimes, wrongs, or acts under Rule 404(b). United States v. Loza, 764 F. Supp. 2d 55, 57
(D.D.C. 2011). First, the Court must determine whether “‘the evidence [is] probative of some
material issue other than character.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Clarke, 24 F.3d 257, 264
(D.C. Cir. 1994)). Any purpose for which such evidence is introduced is a proper purpose so
long as the evidence is not offered solely to prove character. See United States v. Mahdi, 598
F.3d 883, 891 (D.C. Cir. 2010). If the evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is determined to
be relevant to a legitimate purpose, the Court must determine whether it nevertheless should be
excluded under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence because “its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading
the jury[.]” FED . R. EVID . 403; see United States v. McCarson, 527 F.3d 170, 173-74 (D.C. Cir.
2008); United States v. Clarke, 24 F.3d at 264.
The Court finds that evidence of defendant Haskel’s prior shootings is not
relevant to any legitimate purpose and is therefore inadmissible under step one of the inquiry.
The only purpose that plaintiff identifies for this evidence is to support his claims for negligent
training and supervision under common law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Opp. at 2-6, 9. The
Court, however, has granted summary judgment to the defendants on both of those claims. See
2
Rawlings v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 07-1914, 2011 WL 5117099, at *17-*20
(D.D.C. Oct. 28, 2011). Evidence of the previous shootings thus cannot be relevant on the basis
of those claims. The plaintiff has identified no other purpose for the evidence, and the Court
cannot discern any purpose for it other than to demonstrate that defendant Haskel, during the
Rawlings incident, acted in conformity with a tendency to engage in off-duty shootings.
Evidence of the prior shootings may not be admitted for that purpose. See FED . R. EVID . 404(b);
Hudson v. District of Columbia, 558 F.3d 526, 529-32 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (remanding for new trial
because district court erroneously allowed counsel to question witness about defendant police
officer’s prior bad acts to show conformity therewith).
Accordingly, by Order of November 3, 2011, the Court has granted the
defendants’ motion in limine to exclude any evidence that Officer Haskel was involved in two
prior off-duty shootings, and to prohibit any reference to those shootings at any stage of the trial.
SO ORDERED.
/s/_______________________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge
DATE: November 4, 2011
3