Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 43.8 kB
Pages: 1
Date: June 5, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 334 Words, 2,190 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/7545/134.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 43.8 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:04-cv-00193-SLR

Document 134

Filed 06/05/2008

Page 1 of 1

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, III
ATTORNEY GENERAL

NEW CASTLE COUNTY 820 NORTH FRENCH STREET WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801

CIVIL DIVISION (302) 577-8400 FAX: (302) 577-6630

June 4, 2008 The Honorable Sue L. Robinson. U.S. Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 RE: Melendez v. Gardells, et al. , C.A. No. 04-193-SLR

Dear Judge Robinson: Defendants submit this letter to clarify any misunderstandings regarding their motion in limine (D.I.123). Plaintiff believes that defense counsel requests inconsistent forms of relief by asking that the Court exclude evidence of Plaintiff's non-physical injuries. Defendants object to the references of any injury beyond the bruises Plaintiff claims he had on the night of the alleged incident. The objection is to any allegations of Plaintiff's alleged non-visual injuries, such as neck pain. A medical expert is necessary to establish causation of these alleged injuries. Moreover, Plaintiff must prove the causation between Defendants' alleged acts and any of his injuries, because a reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiff's bruises were pre-existing, or caused by Plaintiff's attempted suicide. Additionally, Plaintiff writes that defense counsel "has confirmed that there will be no objection to the admission into evidence of Melendez's medical records." Defendants have agreed to allow the admission of Plaintiff's medical exhibits if Plaintiff stipulates to the admissibility of his medical records at trial. At the current time, this mutual agreement has not been reached. Finally, with regard to Defendants' response to Plaintiff's motion in limine (D.I.132), Defendants' analysis focused upon a discussion of Rule 609, as that was Plaintiff's basis for the motion. While Defendants cannot predict the testimony that will be elicited at trial, Defendants may use Plaintiff's prior convictions for other reasons, such as rebuttal to Plaintiff's possible claim of a peaceful disposition. Respectfully submitted, /s/Catherine Damavandi Catherine Damavandi, I.D. #3823 cc: Mr. Jason Jowers, Esq. Mr. Ed McNally, Esq.