Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00193-SLR Document 135 Filed 06/05/2008 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ANIBAL MELENDEZ, )
Plaintiff, g
v. ) Civ. No. O4-193-SLR
NATE GARDELS and MICHAEL g
ALLEN, )
Defendants. )
O R D E R
At Wilmington this 5th day of June, 2008, having reviewed the parties’ motions in
Iimine and the responses thereto;
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ motion in Iimine (D.I. 123) is denied. Plaintiff has consistently
alleged, during the course of discovery, that he sustained a number of physical injuries,
including "lacerations to his face and scalp and numerous bruises and abrasions to his
back, side, chest, face and head." (D.I. 11, ‘|I 20) Plaintiff has also claimed that, as a
result ofthe above identified physical injuries, he has suffered pain and a stiff neck.
(Q, Tl 32) The above injuries are apparent to a layman, "and there is no requirement
that medical testimony be presented to establish causation." g Wagner v. Bay City,
227 F.3d 316, 320 n.3 (5th Cir. 2000). However, because plaintiff has put his medical
condition at issue through his assertions in this case, portions of his medical records

Case 1 :04-cv-00193-SLR Document 135 Filed 06/05/2008 Page 2 of 2
must be admitted}
2. Plaintiff’s motion in limine (D.I. 122) is granted, as identifying the crimes of
conviction for each of plaintiff and his two witnesses would be unduly prejudicial
pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403. The fact that these three individuals are incarcerated as
convicted felons sufficiently demonstrates their "‘incIination not to abide by society’s
rules."’ IVIan/el v. Snyder, 2003 WL 22134838, at *3 (D. Del. Sept. 9, 2003) (citation
omitted). Therefore, identifying the crimes of violence of which each of these
individuals is convicted only serves to inflame the jury and carries the "substantial risk
that the evidence will prevent the jury from considering it for impeachment purposes
only and remain unbiased, even with the guidance of a limiting instruction." Q, at *4.
Because the case hinges on the credibility of the witnesses, I believe it is critical to have
the jury judge the witnesses’ credibility based upon their demeanor in the courtroom
and the substance of their testimony, without the distraction of a label that describes
past conduct unrelated to specific instances of dishonesty or to the conduct at bar.2
ll am unclear as to whether plaintiff objects to this or not, given the discussion of
such in the pretrial order. (_Se_e_ D.I. 127, ‘|j 6.a.i.)
2With respect to the factor of time, while I have been informed that the ten—year
trigger of Rule 609(b) is not in play, I have not been informed as to how much time has
elapsed since the time of conviction. Consequently, I have not weighed this factor in
my analysis.

Case 1:04-cv-00193-SLR

Document 135

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00193-SLR

Document 135

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 2 of 2