Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de717> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de717 RegisterActionDate "2020-11-24" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de717 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Plaintiff seeks to bar "collateral witnesses" that allegedly do not provide evidence that is relevant to the issues at hand 538 . Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Leticia Bertaud would only testify about Plaintiff driving erratically and that is not relevant or helpful to the Jury, and further that she speculates about the exact date of the incident. Defendants respond that they do not intend to elicit the testimony from Bertaud about driving too fast. Second, Plaintiffs seeks to bar Drew Froeter from testifying that Plaintiff came to Froeter's residence and wanted to "get drunk one last time." Third, Plaintiff seeks to bar Andrew Gladkoski and Wendy Maag from testifying that Plaintiff threw a bottle at their residence. Fourth, Plaintiff seeks to exclude the testimony of Diane Grabowski who stated that the Plaintiff was drunk in the neighborhood and that Trunko "had a nice ass." Fifth, Plaintiff seeks to bar the testimony of Mary Gladkowski Hibertand and Michael Kolodzinski who stated that they observed Plaintiff's behavior at Trunko's wake and it appeared to them that he was attempting to pull the deceased out the casket. Sixth, Plaintiff seeks to bar the testimony of Carl Trunko who testified that he observed the Plaintiff drive up to a home near the murder scene, pound on the door and say, "I know you know something." This evidence is not collateral. It is highly relevant to AFC55D8 state of mind. Post-murder behavior that is erratic and out of the ordinary has been admitted in this Circuit to show evidence of guilt. See Bieghler v. McBride, 389 F.3d 701, 707(7thCir.2004)("distraught and panicked behavior after the slayings" relevant to show guilt); see also Socha v. Richardson, 874 F.3d 983, 98990 (7th Cir. 2017)(Suspicious behavior and desire to leave town evidence of guilt). Witnesses who heard direct statements from AFC55D8 that he desired to date Trunko or that he was sexually attracted to her are highly relevant because AFC55D8 has stated he did not have any relationship with her. They are also highly relevant to the Defendants' defense that he confessed to the crime because those statements corroborate what he told to the police officers. Seventh, Plaintiff seeks to bar the testimony of Lucy Trunko, the victim's mother who testified that the Plaintiff attempted to date her daughter but she would not go out with him. She also testified that the Plaintiff told her that her daughter "had a nice ass but she won't give it up." This evidence is highly relevant to corroborate the Defendants' theory of the case that in fact AFC55D8 committed the murder and confessed to the crime. The confession to the police was that AFC55D8 killed Trunko because he spurned her advances. Finally, Plaintiff seeks to bar the testimony of John Vega and Rudy Venegas who stated they saw the Plaintiff at a bar the night of the murder. Defendants state that their testimony is for impeachment purposes should AFC55D8 testify inconsistently with their testimony of his whereabouts and therefore they are not collateral. Plaintiff's 538 motion is denied. Mailed notice (lk, ) (Entered: 11/24/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de717 AdministrativeID "717" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de717 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de538 @default.