Maddox v. Francemone, 5:19-cv-00678

Tanajee Maddox, as administratrix for the estate of Gary Terrance Porter, brought a § 1983 action against Syracuse Police Officer Kelsey Francemone, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Prior to trial, both parties filed motions in limine: Maddox sought to exclude evidence of Porter’s prior firearm convictions, while Francemone sought to admit them.
Porter had two prior firearm convictions: one from 2008 (criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree) and one from 1994 (criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree).
The primary factual dispute in the underlying case is whether Porter was armed at the time of the incident, as no gun was recovered and eyewitnesses disagree.
The central legal question was whether admitting Porter’s past firearm convictions would be more prejudicial than probative, especially given the age of the convictions and the crucial credibility determinations for the jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior firearm convictions (404(b))	Convictions are unduly prejudicial and serve no legitimate purpose	Convictions show Porter had access to weapons and motive to flee; rebut character evidence	Excluded for opportunity/access; probative value outweighed by prejudice
Use to show “lack of mistake” and “knowledge”	Not in dispute; any slight probative value is prejudicial	Suggests Porter knew how to handle/acquire firearms	Not admissible; these issues are not disputed and prejudice outweighs probative value
Use to show “motive to flee”	Porter fled because of gunfire, like others present	Prior convictions explain particular conduct in fleeing: motive not to be caught as recidivist	Reserved ruling until trial pending presentation of evidence
Admission to rebut possible character evidence	(No argument specified)	Convictions relevant to moral character/parental guidance	Issue deferred; not ruled upon in this order

United States v. Pitre, 960 F.2d 1112 (2d Cir. 1992) (Rule 404(b) evidence may be admitted for any purpose other than propensity)
United States v. Scott, 677 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2012) (propensity evidence is inadmissible; relevance to disputed issue required)
United States v. McCallum, 584 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2009) (prior convictions more prejudicial due to official reliability; careful Rule 403 balancing required)
United States v. Figueroa, 618 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1980) (remoteness of conviction diminishes probative value)