Daniels v. Loizzo
986 F.Supp. 245, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20672, 1997 WL 789377 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of prior convictions is admissible for impeachment or to establish motive under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 609, only if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, with specific restrictions for convictions more than ten years old, crimes not involving dishonesty, and a complete prohibition on evidence of arrests not leading to conviction.
Facts:
- On July 6, 1987, Officer Leonard Loizzo and Daniel Fisher arrested William Daniels.
- William Daniels alleged that on the date of his arrest, Officer Loizzo and Daniel Fisher used excessive force against him and verbally abused him with racial epithets, causing permanent physical injuries and mental anguish.
- In 1980, William Daniels was convicted of unauthorized use of a vehicle and possession of stolen property (Class A misdemeanors).
- In 1981, William Daniels was convicted of assault, criminal use of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a weapon, for which he was paroled in 1985.
- On July 1, 1987, William Daniels escaped from Mount Vernon police detectives who were attempting to arrest him on an outstanding parole warrant.
- In 1988, William Daniels was convicted of assault on a police officer, resisting arrest, and escape in the third degree, based on the events of July 1, 1987.
- In 1992, William Daniels was convicted of attempted assault on a police officer.
- In 1994, William Daniels was convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine, for which he was scheduled to begin serving a life sentence on January 7, 1998.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 6, 1987, William Daniels was arrested by Officer Leonard Loizzo and Daniel Fisher and charged with criminal possession of a weapon, reckless endangerment, and assault.
- William Daniels was later acquitted by a jury of the charges stemming from the July 6, 1987 arrest.
- William Daniels filed a civil rights action against Officer Leonard Loizzo and Daniel Fisher in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, alleging excessive force and racial abuse in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state claims.
- William Daniels filed a motion in limine in the District Court to exclude his prior criminal history at trial, which the Defendant Officer Loizzo and Daniel Fisher partially opposed, conceding only to the inadmissibility of arrests not resulting in convictions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Federal Rules of Evidence permit the admission of William Daniels' prior criminal convictions and arrests to establish motive or impeach his credibility in his civil rights excessive force lawsuit against police officers, considering the age, nature, and purpose of the proffered evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Lowe, District Judge
No, William Daniels' prior criminal history is admissible only in part, and for limited purposes, because courts must carefully balance the probative value of such evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice. The court granted William Daniels' motion in part and denied it in part. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of an outstanding parole warrant on July 6, 1987, is admissible to demonstrate William Daniels' motive to resist arrest. However, details of the July 1, 1987 escape incident and the resulting 1988 conviction are inadmissible, as they would improperly suggest a propensity to commit such acts rather than a specific motive relevant to the July 6th incident, and their prejudicial effect outweighs their probative value under Rule 403. Regarding impeachment under Federal Rule of Evidence 609: 1. Misdemeanor Convictions: William Daniels' misdemeanor convictions (unauthorized use of a vehicle, possession of stolen property, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, escape) are inadmissible under Rule 609(a)(1) because they were not punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year, and under Rule 609(a)(2) as they do not involve dishonesty or false statement. 2. 1994 Drug Conspiracy Conviction: This felony conviction is not automatically admissible under Rule 609(a)(2) as drug crimes do not inherently involve dishonesty, and Defendants presented no specific facts proving deceit. However, it is admissible under Rule 609(a)(1) (felony conviction) because its probative value for veracity, its recency (three years old), dissimilarity to the current allegations, and the paramount importance of William Daniels' credibility outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice. The court limits its use to the fact and date of conviction to mitigate prejudice. 3. 1988 and 1992 Assault Convictions: These felony assault convictions are inadmissible under Rule 609(a)(1). They are too similar to the excessive force alleged in the lawsuit, posing a significant risk of unfair prejudice by suggesting William Daniels' propensity to instigate such incidents. Their minimal incremental probative value for impeachment is substantially outweighed by this prejudice, especially given the admissibility of the 1994 conviction. 4. 1981 Conviction (Over Ten Years Old): This conviction is inadmissible under Rule 609(b), which disfavors convictions more than ten years old. Despite the importance of credibility and the fact that other convictions show William Daniels has not “mended his ways,” the 1981 conviction (12 years old) does not strongly involve veracity and its marginal impeachment value is substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice of 'piling on' previous convictions. Finally, William Daniels' arrests that did not result in convictions are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), as arrests alone do not impeach a witness's integrity or credibility.
Analysis:
This case provides a detailed roadmap for applying Federal Rules of Evidence 403, 404(b), and 609 in the context of a civil rights excessive force action, particularly regarding a plaintiff's prior criminal history. It emphasizes the critical distinction between using prior acts to prove motive (which can be permissible with limitations) versus using them to suggest general bad character or propensity (which is generally prohibited). The ruling highlights the strict balancing test required for admitting older convictions and similar-type offenses, demonstrating the courts' efforts to prevent undue prejudice while allowing for relevant impeachment evidence to assess witness credibility, especially when credibility is central to the case outcome.
