Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00052-RNC

Document 150

Filed 06/20/2005

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

MARGARET COWAN, as Administratrix of the Estate of Victoria Cooper, Plaintiff, V. MICHAEL BREEN, Defendant. : : CIVIL NO.: 3:00CV00052(RNC) ALL CASES

MARGARET COWAN, as Administratrix of the Estate of Victoria Cooper, Plaintiff, V. TOWN OF NORTH BRANFORD Defendant. : : CIVIL NO.: 301CV00229 (RNC) JUNE 20, 2005

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE RE AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF DECEDENT IN VEHICLE Plaintiff intends to offer only two autopsy photographs, redacted to show only the areas of forensic interest, the entry and exit bullet wounds. See plaintiff's exhibit 76. Plaintiff has anticipated and fully addressed defendants' concerns, giving defendants more than they are entitled to. Defendants also object to photographs of Vicki Cooper in the Camaro, but their memorandum does not address those photos. In any case, there are again only two photos, one from the victim's left, the other from her right. See plaintiff's exhibits 21, 22. They were selected 1

Case 3:00-cv-00052-RNC

Document 150

Filed 06/20/2005

Page 2 of 3

because they were informative without being gruesome. They have considerable evidentiary value: exhibit 21 shows Vicki Cooper in the position where she was found after her death. The viewer can see her relationship to the seat and the window (note for example that the bullet wound is well below the window). Exhibit 22 shows a partial view of Vicki Cooper as seen from the driver's side , without showing any blood, and is also informative (note for example that she is not wearing glasses). It is also a view of the inside of the Camaro from the perspective of someone close to the driver's side window, which is the location where defendant Breen shot her from. Photographs are admissible notwithstanding Rule 403 if they have evidentiary value, even if they may also be prejudicial. See, e.g., United States v. Salim, 189 F. Supp. 2d 93, 97-99 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) and cases there cited. These photographs are relevant, and none is prejudicial at all, much less sufficiently prejudicial to meet Rule 403's "undue prejudice" standard. The motion should be denied.

THE PLAINTIFF

By /s/ David N. Rosen David N. Rosen 400 Orange Street New Haven, Connecticut 06511 (203) 787-3513 CT00196 E-mail: [email protected]

2

Case 3:00-cv-00052-RNC

Document 150

Filed 06/20/2005

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum was sent first class mail, postage prepaid on June 20, 2005 to:

Thomas R. Gerarde, Esquire Howd & Ludorf 65 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06114

/s/ David N. Rosen David N. Rosen

3