Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03015/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03015-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

1

*E-FILED 6/8/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DONALD HUDSON, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOSEPH FREITAS, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C-05-03015 RS

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN

LIMINE NO. 5

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5, filed May 31, 2006. The motion

seeks to exclude any reference to, or admission of, documents relating to any Internal Affairs

investigations regarding defendant Officer Freitas. Based on the motion, plaintiffs’ written

opposition, and the record herein, the motion will be GRANTED.

The documents at issue relate to two incidents in which citizens made accusations that

Officer Freitas exercised excessive force in the course of making arrests. Although the general

circumstances of the incidents described in the documents have some commonalities with the

incident at issue in this action, the similarities primarily are those that might be found in almost any

arrest involving some degree of resistance and force. No particular details of any significance are

similar, nor are the overall circumstances markedly close. In both instances, the Internal Affairs

investigations concluded that Officer Freitas had not exercised excessive force.

Case 5:05-cv-03015-RS Document 66 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

2

In general, a four part test applies when determining the admissibility of evidence of similar

prior or subsequent incidents: “(1) there must be sufficient proof for the jury to find that the

defendant committed the other act, (2) the other act must not be too remote in time, (3) the other act

must be introduced to prove a material issue in the case, and (4) the other act must, in some cases, be

similar to the offense charged.” Duran v. City of Maywood, 221 F.3d 1127, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Even if this test is satisfied, the evidence may still be excluded if its probative value is substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Id. at 1133. In weighing the matter, a legitimate

concern is whether introducing evidence regarding the other incidents will require, in effect, a “trial

within the trial” The Ninth Circuit has further observed that in an excessive force case, “[t]he

question to be resolved was whether, objectively, [the officer’s] use of force had been excessive.

[citation] [The officer’s] past conduct did not bear on that issue.” Gates v. Rivera, 993 F.2d 697,

700 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Under these standards and circumstances, evidence relating to the prior incidents will not be

admitted. This ruling is without prejudice to further consideration of the admissibility of such

evidence should any testimony of Officer Freitas or another witness give rise to circumstances where

the evidence might become admissible for some other purpose.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: June 8, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03015-RS Document 66 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Michael J. Dodson cao.main@sanjoseca.gov

Anthony E. Pagkas pagkas@yahoo.com, cdanjou@gmail.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: June 8, 2006 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-03015-RS Document 66 Filed 06/08/06 Page 3 of 3