Jackson v. County of San Bernardino
194 F. Supp. 3d 1004
C.D. Cal.2016Background
- On Oct. 27, 2011, SBSD deputies responded to Robert Jackson III's home; after a multi-hour standoff Jackson climbed out an attic/dormer vent and fell, suffering paralysis below the waist.
- Jackson alleges Det. Bannes struck him with a Taser dart while he was hanging from the vent, causing the fall; defendants say Jackson fell first and the Taser was deployed afterward.
- Claims: (1) § 1983 excessive force (Bannes); (2) state battery/excessive force (Bannes and County); (3) negligence (Bannes and County); punitive damages also pleaded.
- Court denied defendants' summary judgment, finding a triable dispute whether Jackson was tased while elevated — a fact material to all claims.
- Before trial parties filed multiple motions in limine and a request to use written jury questionnaires; the Court heard arguments June 27, 2016 and set rulings.
- The Court declined written juror questionnaires and issued rulings on contested evidentiary matters (admitting some contextual evidence, excluding other evidence unknown to Bannes at the time he used force).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of written jury questionnaire for voir dire | Jackson implicit: open-court voir dire acceptable | County sought written questionnaire to facilitate selection | Denied — court will conduct voir dire in open court |
| Evidence of alleged thefts/prior acts (Plaintiff MIL 1) | Exclude as irrelevant/prejudicial | Admissible if Bannes knew details before using force; relevant to Graham factors | Denied in part: admissible only to the extent Bannes actually knew those details; limiting instruction required |
| Evidence of intoxication/drugs (Plaintiff MIL 2) | Exclude as irrelevant/character evidence | Defendants seek admission of items and medical chart entries showing intoxication that day | Denied in part: evidence that Jackson was intoxicated that day admissible; unrelated drug-history excluded if inconsistent with medical evidence |
| Evidence of pocket knives found after arrest (Plaintiff MIL 4) | Exclude — knives were not known to Bannes at time of use of force | Defendants invoke Boyd to admit corroborating post-incident facts | Granted: excluded because Bannes had no knowledge of knives during the incident and Boyd is inapplicable |
| Statements to paramedics that Jackson was shot while elevated (Defendants MIL 2 / admissibility) | Jackson sought exclusion as hearsay | County argued hearsay; but paramedic testimony reflects deputies' statements | Denied: statements admissible as opposing-party statements (Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)); court finds by preponderance Bannes likely spoke to paramedics so statements admissible against him |
Key Cases Cited
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (pretrial in limine rulings are preliminary and district courts may revisit them)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use-of-force reasonableness assessed under totality of circumstances)
- Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles, 64 F.3d 1323 (prior conduct may be admissible to show reasonableness of officer's actions)
- Boyd v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 576 F.3d 938 (admission of prior acts where officer’s perception immediately before force is disputed; limited to contexts like "suicide-by-cop")
- Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985 (prejudice concerns and limiting prejudicial evidence)
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (court may make preliminary factual findings by preponderance to admit hearsay under certain exceptions)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (role of factfinder in resolving disputed evidence)