Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03204/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03204-12/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF RICARDO ESCOBEDO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-03204 CRB

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the opposition filed by the Estate in connection with

Defendants’ offer of proof regarding the prior bad acts of Ricardo Escobedo. Nothing in the

opposition, which was filed at 12:48 p.m. before a 2:00 p.m. hearing, leads the Court to

question the rulings it set forth on the 404(b) evidence submitted by Defendants. 

As in oral argument, the Estate’s opposition focuses entirely on the state of mind of

the police officers and insists that nothing else is relevant. Cf. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S.

386, 397 (1989) (“[T]he question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable”

in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying

intent or motivation.”). In making this argument, the Estate confuses the standard of civil

liability, which asks only whether the officers were reasonable to use a certain amount of

force based on what they could objectively observe at the scene of the incident, and the

standard regarding the admissibility of evidence, which asks whether certain evidence is

Case 3:03-cv-03204-CRB Document 252 Filed 03/29/07 Page 1 of 2
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

G:\CRBALL\2003\3204\order re prior bad acts.wpd2

relevant to determine what actually happened at the scene of the incident. Here, some of

Escobedo’s prior bad acts are relevant to his state of mind at the time of the incident; and

therefore to the question of what version of events is most accurate; and therefore to the

question of what the officers most likely observed at the scene of the incident; and therefore

to the question of whether their forceful response was reasonable. The Court therefore

reaffirms its rulings that certain of the proffered “prior bad acts” are admissible, provided

that Defendants present the evidence in appropriate form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-03204-CRB Document 252 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 2