Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

JL FILED ___"_ LODGED
1 James W. Field *m_ HECEFVEU ..1 COPY
P.O. Box 248
2 sa10me,Az. sssris MAY 2 4 2006 ·
3 CLERK 0 S DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT or Amazons
- BY; S DEPUTY
4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT a‘“t“*”""_"“`
5
6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
7
8 James W. Field, ) Case No.: CV03-2214-PHX—SRB
)
9 Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIl\/IINE
) CONCERNING DEFENDANTS’
10 vs. ) PROPOSED USE OF IRRELIVENT
) CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS
11 La Paz County et. al. , )
)
12 Defendant )

13
14
15 Comes now Plaintiff, mentioned above to submit this Motion in Limine of all irrelevant
16 documents that pertain to any criminal allegations unrelated to the circumstances surrounding the
17 unnoticed termination of Utilities Service to Plaintiff’s Real Property November 12, 2002.
18 The Defense apparently intends to attempt to try this issue before the Jury, based upon
19 unsubstantiated allegations of a criminal nature totally unrelated to the Civil Action before the Court,
20 as indicated by the disclosure of 25 incident reports taken by La Paz County Sheriffs Deputies that
21 are wholly unrelated to the termination of Utilities Service upon Plaintiffs’ Property.
22 While the documents disclosed do not relate to the issue of weather Defendant’s violated
23 Plaintiffs Civil & or Constitutional Rights Under Color of Law by terminating Electrical Service to
24 Plaintiffs Property, there is no reason to believe that the defense strategy has changed as evidenced by
25
Case 2:03—cv—02214—SFlB Document 199 ‘l‘FiIed 05/24/2006 Page 1 of 4

.| ,
1 recent disclosure of proposed deposition of Pete Heere For the reasons set forth below, this Court
2 should not permit the Trial to delve into these unsupported and irrelevant assertions.
3 ARGUMENT The referenced documents should be excluded from the Jury Trial on the
4 grounds they are irrelevant under Federal Rule of evidence 401 furthermore, the documents are
5 extremely prejudicial to Plaintiff as they are set forth to appear as 25 criminal allegations when in
6 reality 11 of 25 are Plaintiffs brothers over civil matters revolving around our Parents divorcing after
7 46 years, the remaining 14 entries stem from 5 incidents of which 4 were either dismissed or Plaintiff
8 was acquitted during trial.
9 Documents Regarding unfounded and unrelated allegations of criminal conduct against
10 Plaintiff, especially allegations that never resulted in either criminal charges being levied or
11 convictions being obtained Is Irrelevrmt under F ed. R. Evid. 401.
12 Definition of "relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the
13 existence of any fact that is of conseguence to the determination of the action more probable or less
14 probable than it would be without the evidence.
15 "The accused does not have an unfettered right to offer testimony that is incompetent,
16 privileged, or otherwise inadmissible under standard rules of evidence." Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S.
17 400, 413 (1988).
18 Evidence relating to if the Plaintiff was accused of having a verbal disagreement with his
19 younger brothers is unrelated to the termination of Electrical Power to Plaintiff"s property, it is
20 irrelevant and should be excluded.
21 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, evidence is relevant only if it has any tendency to make the
22 existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable.
23 The issues in this case center upon the Defendants' termination of Electrical Service without
24 notice to Plaintiffs property and weather conditions found on Plaintiffs Property constituted a actual
25 immediate safety emergency that would justify the actions of Defendants.
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 199 *2·FiIed 05/24/2006 Page 2 of 4

1 Further if Defendants actions, as shown by waiting 13 days between the discovery of alleged
2 "obvious hazards" and the "termination of Utilities Service without notice" would indicate the
3 Defendants believed the conditions of the Electrical Service on Plaintiffs Property were an
4 "immediate danger” to the Publics Safety. Should have Plaintiffs been given 5 days notice,
5 considering the fact they allowed 13 days to pass before terminating Utilities Service without notice.
6 "Relevancy is not an inherent charestic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation
7 between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case" "Does the item of evidence
8 tend to prove the mater sought to be proved" "The rule summarizes this relationship as a "tendency
9 to make the existencc-:" of the fact to be proved "more probable or less probable" James, Relevancy,
1U Probability and the Law, 29 Calif.L.Rev. 689, 696, n. 15 (1941), in Selected Writings on
11 Evidence and Trial 610, 615, n. 15 (Fryer ed. 1957)
12 “State v. Superior Court, 132 Ariz. 374, 645 P.2d 1288 (CA.2, 1982) (“Assaultive conduct
13 does not involve dishonesty of false statement and therefore could not be used to impeach the
14 credibility of the ojiicers ” under Rule 608)b)) ”.
15 Allegations of a criminal nature, “wholly unrelated to the termination of Electric Service "
16 or “the conditions of electrical infrastructure contained on Plaintiffs property" or "ifthe Defendants
17 reasonably believed the Electrical Service was an immediate safety danger " are irrelevant.
18 The rule uses the phrase ‘Q"act that is of consequence to the determination ofthe action " to
19 describe the kind of fact to which proof may be properly directed. Tentative Recommendation and a
20 study Relating to the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Art. I. General Provisions), Cal. Law Revision
21 Comm’n Rep., Rec. & Studies, 10-11 (1964)
22 Defendants have not, and indeed, cannot identify any form of alleged criminal conduct
23 relating to "the Defendants decision to terminate the Electrical Service without notice" or "the
24 condition of facilities contained on Plaintiffs Property" the only issues in this matter. In sum,
25 Defendants have failed to make even a threshold showing of the relevance the criminal allegations
have toward the actual issues in this matter. Defendants must meet this burden to raise a reasonable
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 199 `3' Filed 05/24/2006 Page 3 of 4

1 doubt as to the evidences purpose. Because they have failed to do so, they are not entitled to put
2 evidence relating to criminal allegations before the Jury or to argue to the Jury that the evidence has
3
4 been unfairly determined inadmissible.
_$;jT'
5 Respectfully submitted this ·*' day of May 2006.
6
E cx"! .. F
7 _.#g:*zy < [2/
. P o se Plaintiff, James W. Field
8 t
ORIGINAL and one Copy of the foregoing
9 Filed this .£'?‘L day of May 2006 with
10 The Clerk of the Court
Sandra Day O’Connor Federal Courthouse
U state 130
401 W. Washington St. SPC1
12 1>1¤X.Az. ssoos J
13
14 A Copy of the foregoing sent
This day ¤""‘ of May 2006 to
15 Gaona Law Firm
16 3101 N. Central Ave.
Suite 720
17 Phx. AZ. 85012
18 Jones, Skelton & Hochuli
2901 N. Central Ave.
19 Sllllii 800
Phx. AZ. 85012
20 H l '“l
By new ,~ ai /aeiitca-·n‘€
2] Tammy lj d
Plaint` s’ Assistant
22
23
24
25
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 199 ‘4‘FiIed 05/24/2006 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 199

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 199

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 199

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 199

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 4 of 4