Estate of Jeffrey Melvin v. City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, 1:20-cv-00991

The Estate of Jeffrey Melvin brought a §1983 civil rights action against the City of Colorado Springs, alleging excessive force by police officers resulting in Melvin's death on April 26, 2018.
Individual officers were initially defendants, but the Tenth Circuit found they were entitled to qualified immunity, leaving only the City as defendant.
The case is proceeding to a 10-day jury trial set for August 2025.
The parties filed competing motions in limine seeking to exclude or admit various evidence, including Melvin's criminal history, drug use, medical records, and law enforcement policies.
The Court's ruling addresses which categories of evidence are admissible or excluded, shaping the scope and focus of the trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Melvin’s criminal history and arrest warrant	Evidence is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, as officers were unaware of the warrant or charges; not relevant to excessive force inquiry	Relevant to Melvin’s motive for resisting arrest and to damages	Excluded; officers' lack of knowledge makes it irrelevant, and risk of prejudice outweighs probative value
Evidence of Melvin’s drug/alcohol use (other than cause of death)	Should be excluded except as relates to cause of death	Relevant to damages and possibly probative of circumstances	Excluded except as related to cause of death; otherwise irrelevant and prejudicial
Use of term “homicide” and “killed” at trial	Jury can understand medical use of “homicide”; should not be misleading	Terms are inflammatory and may mislead jury	"Homicide" limited to autopsy/death certificate and must be explained by experts; "killed" and "murder" excluded as prejudicial
Admission of late-disclosed cards, letters, and photos	Disclosure is harmless	Admission is prejudicial, as disclosure was too late after fact discovery	Excluded; late disclosure not justified and prejudicial

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (established the standard for evaluating excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment)
United States v. Howell, 285 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2002) (addresses Rule 609 and admissibility of criminal convictions for impeachment)
United States v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2007) (sets very low bar for admission under Rule 401)
United States v. Neal, 718 F.2d 1505 (10th Cir. 1983) (discretion of trial court in relevance and Rule 403 determinations)