Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cox v. Wilson

United States District Court, D. Colorado

November 17, 2016

CODY WILLIAM COX, Plaintiff,
v.
DON WILSON, in his individual capacity Defendant.

          ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE

          WILLIAM J. MARTÍNEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This case arises out of a police use-of-force incident between Plaintiff Cody William Cox (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Don Wilson (“Defendant”) that occurred on January 31, 2014. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) As a result of this incident, Plaintiff brings suit against Defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 3.) This matter is set for a jury trial commencing on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, with the Final Trial Preparation Conference set for November 18, 2016. (ECF No. 120.) This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (“Motion”). (ECF No. 126.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

         I. ANALYSIS

         Plaintiff's Motion seeks evidentiary rulings on the admissibility of the following evidence prior to trial: (1) Plaintiff's prior felony and misdemeanor convictions, as well as any charges not resulting in conviction; (2) Plaintiff's driving behavior prior to Defendant's contact with Plaintiff; and (3) amounts paid by Medicaid to Plaintiff's medical providers.

         A. Plaintiff's Prior Convictions and Charges

         1. Prior Felony Convictions

         In 2003, Plaintiff was convicted of felony first-degree trespass and driving under the influence of alcohol under Colorado Revised Statutes §§ 18-4-502 and 42-4-1301. (ECF No. 126 at 5.) Plaintiff was also convicted of felony first-degree trespass in 2004 under Colorado Revised Statute § 18-4-502. (Id.) Plaintiff moves to exclude evidence of his prior felony convictions under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b). (Id. at 5-6.)

         Rule 609 governs when and how a witness's prior convictions may be used to impeach a witness's character for truthfulness at trial:

(a) In General. The following rules apply to attacking a witness's character for truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction:
(1) for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence:
(A) must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case or in a criminal case in which the witness is not a defendant; and
(B) must be admitted in a criminal case in which the witness is a defendant, if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to that defendant; and
(2) for any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if the court can readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving-or the witness's admitting-a dishonest act or false statement.
(b) Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have passed since the witness's conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is later. Evidence of the conviction is admissible only if:
(1) its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect; and
(2) the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to use it so that the party has a fair ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.