Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_02-cv-01425/USCOURTS-almd-2_02-cv-01425-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

LEROME BRANTLEY, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO.: 2:02cv1425-WHA

 )

OFFICER SUSAN PERRYMAN, ) (WO)

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. #51). The

Plaintiff prays that the Court exclude any evidence regarding: (1) the specifics of the Plaintiff’s

rape convictions, and (2) prior violations of jail disciplinary rules. For the reasons set forth

below, the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine is due to be DENIED. 

In regard to the Plaintiff’s request that the specifics of his rape conviction be excluded,

Plaintiff relies on Federal Rule of Evidence 403, arguing that the prejudicial nature of the

evidence outweighs its probative value under Rule 609(a)(1). Rule 403 states that “[a]lthough

relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the

danger of unfair prejudice. . . .” Fed. R. Evid. 403. In the present situation, however, the

probative value of the evidence is significant, because, if the Plaintiff testifies, the jury will have

to assess the credibility of the Plaintiff and, under Rule 609, evidence of a felony conviction is

admissible to attack the credibility of a witness. Fed. R. Evid. 609. 

In support of his contention, the Plaintiff points to case law in which evidence regarding

the details of a witness’s prior convictions was excluded. See Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687

(8th Cir. 2001). In Foulk, the trial court excluded evidence that a prisoner’s prior felony

convictions were for rape and sodomy. Foulk, 262 F.3d at 689-70. The Eighth Circuit affirmed,

Case 2:02-cv-01425-WHA-SRW Document 73 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 4
2

finding that the evidence offered was not “probative on the issue of credibility.” Id. The

present case is distinguishable from Foulk, however, because the court in that case determined

that the credibility of the witnesses was not paramount to the outcome of the case. This case

more closely resembles the earlier Eighth Circuit case of Cummings v. Malone, 995 F.2d 817,

825 (8th Cir. 1993), which was distinguished in Foulk. Cummings held that evidence of prior

convictions was admissible because the jury’s assessment of the plaintiff’s credibility was

paramount to that case. Similarly, in the present case, the outcome likely will turn on which

witnesses to believe. Thus, credibility is paramount, and the jury should be presented with the

information necessary to assess the credibility of the witnesses, including the specifics of the

Plaintiff’s felony convictions. The highly probative value of this evidence is not substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403. 

This determination does not suggest that the Defendant will have free reign to discuss all

details regarding the Plaintiff’s convictions. Instead, the Defendant will be limited by the

guidance of the Eleventh Circuit in U.S. v. Burston, 159 F.3d 1328, 1335 (11th Cir. 1998), and

only will be able to introduce evidence that the Plaintiff is a convicted felon, that the Plaintiff

was convicted of the felonies of rape and sodomy, the dates of each conviction, the penalties

imposed and that the Plaintiff currently is imprisoned for committing those felonies. Therefore,

in regard to the Plaintiff’s request that the specifics of the Plaintiff’s rape convictions be

excluded, it is hereby ordered that the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine is DENIED.

The court further notes that, in addition to its relevance as to credibility, the fact of prior

convictions for rape and sodomy might be relevant to explaining the actions of the Defendant if

she testifies that she had knowledge of them and that this knowledge factored into her decision to

take the action she did.

Case 2:02-cv-01425-WHA-SRW Document 73 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 4
3

The Plaintiff also seeks to exclude evidence of his prior violations of jail disciplinary

rules, arguing that such evidence is both irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence of prior bad acts

offered to prove conformity therewith. The Plaintiff further argues that the danger of unfair

prejudice outweighs the probative value associated with the presentation of such evidence. The

court does not agree with the Plaintiff’s contentions.

First, evidence of the Plaintiff’s prior violations of jail disciplinary rules of which the

Defendant was aware is relevant in this case, because an alleged violation of the rules sparked

the activity giving rise to this action. Such evidence is pertinent in determining whether

Defendant’s actions were affected by the knowledge of the Plaintiff’s history for similar

occurrences, assuming that the Defendant testifies that she was aware of such.

Second, Rule 404(b) states that “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not

admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It

may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent,

preparation, plan [or] knowledge. . . .” The purposes set forth in this rule are illustrative, not

exhaustive. See Umdemba v. Nicoli, 237 F.3d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 2001) (rejecting the contention that

Rule 404(b) contains a comprehensive list of the purposes for which evidence can be relevant

when proffered to prove something other than character). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has

indicated that evidence of prior bad acts is admissible so long as it is not offered to prove

character, but instead to prove any material issue other than character. Huddleston v. United

States, 485 U.S. 681, 687-88 (1988). Thus, evidence of the Plaintiff’s prior violations of jail

disciplinary rules is admissible under Rule 404(b) to show the Defendant’s rationale for

employing the measures taken. The Defendant’s knowledge of the Plaintiff’s prior violations

directly affects how she perceived and reacted to the situation at issue in this case. The evidence

Case 2:02-cv-01425-WHA-SRW Document 73 Filed 09/27/06 Page 3 of 4
4

is not offered to prove character, but to prove the effect upon the Defendant. Therefore, under

Rule 404(b), evidence of prior violations of jail disciplinary rules, of which the Defendant was

aware, is admissible.

Finally, as noted above, Rule 403 excludes evidence if its probative value is outweighed

by the danger of unfair prejudice. In the present situation, however, the Plaintiff has not

presented a substantial rationale indicating why the danger of unfair prejudice significantly

outweighs the probative value of the evidence. Therefore, Rule 403 is not dispositive. Should

the balance, at trial, sway towards the evidence having a substantial, outweighing, prejudicial

effect, the court will address any objections at that time, but a blanket prohibition of the evidence

based on Rule 403 is not warranted at this time. Therefore, in regard to the Plaintiff’s request

that evidence of prior violations of jail disciplinary rules be excluded, it is hereby ordered that

the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine is DENIED.

To the extent that the Plaintiff objects to evidence of subsequent violations of

disciplinary rules, the court will reserve ruling until the Defendant advises the court at trial that

she wishes to offer such evidence and the matter is taken up outside the presence of the jury.

Done this 27th day of September, 2006.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton 

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-01425-WHA-SRW Document 73 Filed 09/27/06 Page 4 of 4