Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chevalier v. Riley

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

December 30, 2019

JAWAAN CHEVALIER (DOC #561624)
v.
ANDRE RILEY

          RULING

          JUDGE JOHN W. DEGRAVELLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

         Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Suppress Testimony and Evidence (Doc. 76.) It is opposed. (Doc 86.) After considering the briefs and arguments of counsel, the Court rules as follows:

         1. The Nature of Plaintiff's Convictions or of Any Arrest That Did Not Lead to Conviction

         Consistent with this Court's prior rulings, the jury may be told that Plaintiff has been convicted of a felony and is serving his sentence at the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center. Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1)(A) makes evidence of a felony criminal conviction admissible subject to Rule 403. The specific crime for which he was convicted is not relevant, or, to the extent relevant, its prejudicial effect outweighs any probative value that it may have. The motion is granted as to the nature of Plaintiff's convictions or any surrounding facts.

         The motion is also granted with respect to any arrests that did not lead to conviction.

         2. ARP EHCC 2016-299

         This exhibit is attached to Plaintiff's motion as Doc. 76-5. The Court has reviewed this exhibit and, consistent with its prior ruling in Mack v. Benjamin, No. 13-552, 2015 WL 7313869 (M.D. La. Nov. 20, 2015), the Court grants the motion to the exhibit as a whole. The exhibit contains hearsay and information which is irrelevant.

         This ruling is without prejudice to the Defendant attempting to introduce specific parts of the exhibit which may, depending upon the specific document introduced and the purpose for which it is being introduced or used, be admissible as an admission, impeachment evidence, or fall into one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

         3. Institutional Record

         This exhibit is attached to Plaintiff's motion as Doc. 76-4. Defendant represents that he does not intend to introduce this document. (Doc. 86 at 2.)[1] Plaintiff's motion is granted. The exhibit contains hearsay, impermissible character evidence and information which is irrelevant.

         4. Kerry Najolia's Expert Report and Attachments

         Defendant claims to be “at a loss to understand how to respond to the motion to excluded (sic) expert Kerry Najolia.” (Doc. 86 at 3.) The Court is at a loss to understand how Defendant can construe Plaintiff's motion to exclude the testimony of their expert since it attempts to exclude the report, and Defendant never addresses Plaintiff's objection to the report based on hearsay. Apparently, Defendant fails to see the distinction between Najolia's report and his in-court testimony (which is not objected to). An expert report is generally not admissible as evidence since it is hearsay. Kerek v. Crawford Elec. Supply Co., Inc., No. 18-76, 2019 WL 6311365 (M.D. La. Nov. 25, 2019). Therefore, Plaintiff's motion is granted. Presumably, Mr. Najolia will be present in court to testify and may express his opinions as they are reflected in his report.

         5. Andre Riley Warden's Unusual Occurrence Report Dated 7/14/16

         Plaintiff does not attach this proposed exhibit to his motion, and, therefore, the Court is unable to rule definitively. However, based on the rationale provided by Plaintiff in his argument (Doc. 76-1 at 4-5), Plaintiff's motion will likely be granted. See Mack v. Benjamin, supra, at *2- 3. Defendant fails to address this Court's opinion in Mack but, without citation of any supporting case law, argues that these documents fall into exceptions to the hearsay rule. (Doc. 86 at 2.) The Court disagrees. Counsel for Defendant is instructed to notify the Court and opposing counsel ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.