Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5

Daniel P. Struck, Bar #012377 Rachel Love Halvorson, Bar #019881 J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone No.: (602) 263-1700 Facsimile No.: (602) 263-1784 E-Mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants, Corrections Corporation of America and Stolc

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Cheryl Allred 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Defendants Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA") and Warden Stolc respond in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 7, which seeks to exclude evidence of Plaintiff's methamphetamine abuse. Where Plaintiff claims emotional damages as a result of the alleged rape, Defendants are entitled to present evidence of pre-existing mental health conditions, including substance abuse, which could be an alternate cause of Plaintiff's damages, and is critical to the defense of this case. Two of Plaintiff's several July, 2001, felony convictions result from meth abuse. During the pendency of Plaintiff's underlying criminal proceedings, Plaintiff campaigned to convince United States District Court's Judge James Parker that she should be released on house arrest, lest she decompose in a prison or halfway house because of preexisting medical conditions and emotional distress stemming from the alleged rape. Later, she was sent to a halfway house where UA's came back positive for illegal drugs. She was kicked out of the halfway house after she threatened suicide. Despite her arrest in July, 2001, for drug charges, Plaintiff has testified that the last time Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 161 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 1 of 4 v. Corrections Corporation of America, Inc.; Bruno Stolc DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF'S METHAM PHETAMINE ABUSE NO. CIV 03-2343 PHX-DGC

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

she used meth was actually in August, 2001.1 She had been snorting meth three times a week since 1999. During her psychological IME with Defendants' psychology expert Dr. Phillip Esplin, Plaintiff admitted that drug use may have historically been the source of problems in her life, including strained relationships, vocational and legal problems and use of drugs to manage stress.2 During the relevant time period, however, on several occasions Plaintiff specifically denied a history of drug abuse.3 Plaintiff claims that all mental health conditions and symptoms she experienced after November 28, 2001, are a result of the alleged rape and not any other mental health conditions experienced prior. Defendants assert that all of Plaintiff's mental health conditions are rooted in her past, stemming in large part from her meth abuse. First, evidence of Plaintiff's drug abuse is relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402 as it has a tendency to make the existence of facts supporting Plaintiff's claimed damages less probable. Because Plaintiff raises a claim of emotional distress, this Court must permit Defendants to introduce evidence of alternate causes of her claimed distress.4 The evidence is also admissible to impeach Plaintiff's claim that prior to her alleged rape, she had a close relationship with family members, and also to impeach Plaintiff's treating providers' opinions that Plaintiff's mental health conditions were caused solely

1

See Deposition of Cheryl Allred dated 5/4/04, at 127-28, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

2

See Expert Report of Dr. Esplin at pg. 6, Bates No. CCAALL001807, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
3

See CCA Initial Health Screening form, Bates No. CCA-ALL00007; Bernanillo County Detention Center Medical History (date of arrest) , Bates No. CCA-ALL0241, attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
4

See Burke v. Spartanics Ltd., 252 F.3d 131, 135 (2nd Cir. 2001); Dillion v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 986 FF.2d 263, 270 (8th Cir. 1993); York v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 95 F.3d 948, 958 (10th Cir. 1996); Hancock v. Hobbs, 967 F.2d 462, 467 (11th Cir. 1992); Gates v. Rivera, 993 F.2d 697, (9th Cir. 1993). 2

Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC

Document 161

Filed 01/11/2006

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
5

by the alleged rape, and not a pre-existing cause. Moreover, the evidence is admissible to impeach Plaintiff's prior inconsistent statements denying a history of meth abuse. The probative value of the meth abuse evidence substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect because the evidence pertains to damages. See F ED.R.E VID . 403. Next, evidence of Plaintiff's meth abuse is admissible under F ED.R.E VID . 404(b) as evidence of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation and plan to convince the New Mexico District Court to release her on house arrest during the pendency of her criminal proceedings, rather than be incarcerated or housed in a halfway house. The evidence is admissible to prove Plaintiff had motive to fabricate her rape allegations so as to be released from prison and regain access to the highly addictive drug. Finally, evidence of Plaintiff's substance abuse is relevant to Plaintiff's general credibility. Dr. Esplin, Defendants' psychology expert, performed normative psychological testing on Plaintiff. Results of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality II test showed that persons with Plaintiff's profile have more frequent problems with abuse of psychotropic medications.5 In addition, U.S. Attorney Steve Yarbrough, considered in part, Plaintiff's meth abuse and resulting pattern of dishonesty to the criminal court in determining that Plaintiff's rape allegations were false.6 Accordingly, evidence of Plaintiff's meth abuse is relevant to Plaintiff's credibility. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants request this Court deny Plaintiff's motion to exclude evidence of Plaintiff's methamphetamine abuse. DATED this 11th day of January, 2006.

25 26
6

See Expert Report at pg. 5, Bates No. CCAALL001806 attached hereto as Exhibit 2. See Deposition of Steve Yarbrough at pg. 29-31, attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 3

Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC

Document 161

Filed 01/11/2006

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C.

By s/ Rachel Halvorson Daniel P. Struck Rachel Love Halvorson 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants, Corrections Correction of America and Stolc Foregoing filed ELECTRONICALLY this 11 th day of January, 2006 with the United States District Court, District of Arizona. COPY of the foregoing mailed even date to:

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4 Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 161 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 4 of 4 Leon Schydlower, Esq L AW O FFICE O F L EON S CHYDLOWER 210 North Campbell Street El Paso, Texas 79901 and Brett Duke, Esq. L AW O FFICES OF B RETT D UKE 4157 Rio Bravo El Paso, Texas 79902 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Cheryl Allred s/ Carol S. Madden