Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03222/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03222-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY JONES and DARLENE JONES, as

successor in interest to Eric Jones;

GREGORY JONES, an individual; and

DARLENE JONES, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

COUNTY OF DEL NORTE, CALIFORNIA, a

political subdivision of California;

RAMSAY WILLIAMSON, an individual,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 08-03222 CW

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN

LIMINE

As discussed at the final pre-trial conference, the Court

rules on the parties’ motions in limine as follows:

Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine

1. Motion to Bifurcate Trial

DENIED as moot. At the hearing on these motions, Plaintiffs

withdrew this motion. 

2. Motion to Exclude Defense Expert Dr. Emily Keram’s Testimony

Regarding Jones’ Mental State and Psychiatric Condition on the

Day of the Shooting.

DENIED. Dr. Keram’s testimony about Jones’ mental state at

the time of the shooting is relevant because, in “cases such as

this, where what the officer perceived just prior to the use of

Case 4:08-cv-03222-CW Document 104 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 6
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

force is in dispute, evidence that may support one version of

events over another is relevant and admissible.” Boyd v. City and

County of San Francisco, 576 F.3d 938, 944 (9th Cir. 2009). Keram

may testify as to the factual basis for her opinion, including some

of the otherwise inadmissible evidence to which Plaintiffs

objected, because its “probative value in assisting the jury to

evaluate the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs [its]

prejudicial effect.” Fed. R. Evid. 703. The Court will instruct

the jury that the evidence is relevant to assess Williamson’s

credibility and the truth of Williamson’s version of events. 

However, Keram may not testify about (1) Jones’ prior marijuana or

alcohol use, (2) Jones’ statements to Dr. Regan in December, 2003

and (3) the January 1, 2004 incident concerning his sister. The

probative value of these facts does not substantially outweigh the

prejudicial effect. 

Plaintiffs’ arguments that Keram’s opinions should be excluded

under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmacueticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579

(1993), have no merit. Keram’s opinions have factual support and

are reliable. 

3. Motion to Exclude Audio Forensics Expert’s Opinions

DENIED. Dr. Begault’s expert testimony is relevant and

reliable. Begault may testify about the contents of Deputy

Williamson’s belt audio recording.

4. Motion to Exclude All Evidence Not Known by Williamson at the

Time of the Shooting

DENIED. The Court will not make a blanket exclusion of all

evidence not known by Williamson at the time of the shooting. 

Under Boyd, evidence beyond the scope of what Williamson knew at

Case 4:08-cv-03222-CW Document 104 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 6
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

3

the time of the shooting may be relevant to assess Williamson’s

credibility and the truth of Williamson’s version of events. 576

F.3d at 944.

5. Motion to Exclude the Toxicology Results from Jones’ Autopsy

and Jones’ Prior Drug Use. 

GRANTED. Evidence from the toxicology report of marijuana in

Jones’ system at the time of his death is excluded as more

prejudicial than probative. Similarly, evidence of Jones’ prior

marijuana use is excluded. 

6. Motion to Exclude Evidence of Jones’ Criminal History

GRANTED. Jones’ criminal history is not relevant to

Plaintiffs’ claim for wrongful death damages. The evidence is also

excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

7. Motion to Exclude Hearsay Statements by Larry Lair

DENIED. To form the basis of their opinions, defense experts

Dr. Keram and Massad Ayoob may rely on the statements made by Larry

Lair, who is now deceased.

8. Motion to Exclude Jones’ Psychiatric Records or Testimony

Regarding Jones’ Psychiatric Condition Prior to the Shooting

Incident

DENIED. Dr. Keram may discuss the psychiatric records she

relied upon to formulate her expert opinion. The January 1, 2004

police report is not independently admissible.

Defendants’ Motions in Limine

1. Motion to Exclude References to Whether Defendants Have

Insurance

GRANTED. Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion.

2. Motion to Exclude Offers to Settle This Case and Other

Statements Made in Settlement Negotiations

GRANTED. Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion.

Case 4:08-cv-03222-CW Document 104 Filed 04/07/10 Page 3 of 6
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

4

3. Motion to Exclude Any Reference to the January 1, 2009

Shooting of Oscar Grant at the Fruitvale BART Station or Other

Publicized Incidents of Police Misconduct.

GRANTED. Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion. 

4. Motion to Exclude Arguments and Inferences Outside the Record

for “Political Effect.”

GRANTED. Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion.

5. Motion to Exclude Percipient Witness Richard Davis from

Testifying or, in the Alternative, to Require that Davis

Appear at a Deposition Prior to Testifying at Trial.

GRANTED in part. Defendants shall be given the opportunity to

depose Davis as soon as possible. If Davis does not appear for

this deposition, Plaintiffs may not call him as a witness in their

case-in-chief. 

6. Motion to Exclude Witnesses from Testifying as to Whether the

Shooting was a “Murder.” 

GRANTED. Similarly, Defendants’ lay witnesses are also

prohibited from testifying as to legal conclusions about the

reasonableness of Williamson’s actions. 

7. Motion to Exclude Testimony by Plaintiffs’ Witnesses that Del

Norte County Sheriff’s Department Had a Custom and Practice of

Unconstitutional Use of Force

GRANTED. Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion.

8. Motion to Exclude Testimony that Deputies Williamson, Berry or

Garcia Were Inadequately Trained

DENIED. Evidence regarding the training of these deputies may

be relevant to a determination of whether the use of force was

reasonable under the circumstances. 

9. Motion to Bar Plaintiffs from Presenting Evidence or Argument

that the Deputies Used Improper Tactics or That They Violated

Police Department Rules Prior the Shooting Incident Itself

DENIED. Evidence regarding the tactics used by the deputies

and whether they violated police department rules prior to the

Case 4:08-cv-03222-CW Document 104 Filed 04/07/10 Page 4 of 6
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

5

shooting may be relevant to a determination of whether the use of

force was reasonable under the circumstances. The Court will

instruct the jury that the following are not necessarily civil

rights violations: (1) rule violations, (2) poor tactics that lead

to the need for the use of deadly force and (3) the use of greater

than the least possible force available to the deputies. 

Plaintiffs have not stated the specific rule violations they seek

to introduce and when these violations occurred. Violations

unrelated to the shooting are not likely to be relevant.

10. Motion to Exclude Testimony or Argument that Deputy Williamson

Should Have Issued a Warning Before Using Deadly Force

DENIED. The jury may consider that Williamson did not issue a

warning to Jones before shooting him. Such evidence is relevant in

this case.

11. Motion to Exclude Any Testimony or Argument Regarding the Fact

that Defendant Did Not Apologize to Plaintiffs

GRANTED. Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion.

12. Motion to Exclude Evidence or Argument that Eric Jones Was

Unarmed

DENIED. The question of whether Jones posed an imminent

threat of serious injury or death to the deputies is central in

this case. Therefore, evidence that he was unarmed is relevant and

admissible. 

13. Motion to Exclude Evidence of Past Complaints, Prior Use of

Force, or Any Disciplinary Actions or Reports Related to

Deputies Williamson, Berry or Garcia

GRANTED. Plaintiffs do not object to this exclusion but they

reserve the right to introduce this evidence if Defendants present

evidence on the topic.

//

Case 4:08-cv-03222-CW Document 104 Filed 04/07/10 Page 5 of 6
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

6

14. Motion to Preclude Plaintiffs from Offering Evidence of Their

Emotional Distress

Granted. Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion.

15. Motion to Exclude All Non-Party Witnesses from the Courtroom

Granted. Non-party witnesses may remain in the courtroom

after they have testified if they will not be called as rebuttal

witnesses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 04/07/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-03222-CW Document 104 Filed 04/07/10 Page 6 of 6