Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de680> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de680 RegisterActionDate "2020-11-03" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de680 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Defendants seek to exclude any mention of Defendant Officer B1DB1AF having attended law school during the time that he interrogated Plaintiff 495 . Defendants believe that this information will be confusing to the Jury and therefore prejudicial in part because B1DB1AF did not graduate from law school until a year after the interrogation. Plaintiff asserts that their client believed at the time of his interrogation that he did not need a lawyer because B1DB1AF held himself out as someone with legal training and that he in fact believed that B1DB1AF was his lawyer. B1DB1AF, of course, denies this to be the case. The information is circumstantial evidence that corroborates Plaintiff's testimony. If the Jury believes Plaintiff that B1DB1AF represented to Plaintiff that he did not need a lawyer and that B1DB1AF held himself out to be someone with legal training that Plaintiff could rely on, the fact that B1DB1AF was actually in law school makes that statement slightly more believable. Nothing is prejudicial about an officer having attended law school during his time working as a police officer; in fact, it may have the effect of bolstering his credibility. As such, it cannot be said that this information, if given to the Jury, would confuse them. Motion to exclude the testimony regarding B1DB1AF law school attendance 495 is denied. Mailed notice (lk, ) (Entered: 11/03/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de680 AdministrativeID "680" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de680 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de495 @default.