Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States ex rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc.
Citation: 289 F. Supp. 3d 118Docket: Civil Action No. 04–0280 (PLF)
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; January 31, 2018; Federal Appellate Court
On January 5, 2018, plaintiff-relator Aaron J. Westrick filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding his character or prior acts, specifically addressing four matters: 1) false allegations of inappropriate contact with a minor against Westrick, 2) a related polygraph test taken by defendant Davis, 3) an accidental shooting incident involving Westrick and Davis during product testing for a bulletproof shield, and 4) a videotape of a fireworks accident at a show run by Second Chance Body Armor. The U.S. government supported Westrick's motion. Toyobo America, Inc. and Toyobo Co. Ltd. initially agreed to exclude evidence on the first two matters and later consented regarding the third and fourth, noting they reserved the right to challenge Westrick's credibility through other means. Defendant Bachner did not oppose the first two matters and remained silent on the third and fourth. Defendant Davis did not respond to the motion. The Court treated the motion as conceded concerning the first two matters due to the lack of opposition. For the third and fourth matters, the Court referenced Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which restricts the introduction of character evidence to prove conduct. It highlighted a two-step analysis for admissibility: first, whether the evidence is relevant to a material issue other than character; second, if admissible, whether it should be excluded under Rule 403 due to potential unfair prejudice or confusion. This analysis ensures that evidence is not used merely to establish a character trait or propensity. Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows exclusion of evidence if its prejudicial impact is unfair, as established in relevant case law. In this instance, evidence related to an accidental shooting and a fireworks accident occurring over fifteen years ago is deemed irrelevant to the False Claims Act case against Mr. Westrick, as no further investigations or charges have arisen from these incidents. The court determines that this evidence serves only as improper character evidence under Rule 404(b). Even if relevant, the potential for unfair prejudice and jury confusion outweighs any probative value, justifying exclusion under Rule 403. Additionally, Rule 608(b) permits inquiry into a witness's character for truthfulness during cross-examination, but neither the shooting nor the fireworks accident relates to Mr. Westrick's credibility. The court ultimately grants Mr. Westrick's motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding his character or prior acts. Consequently, Toyobo, Mr. Bachner, and Mr. Davis are prohibited from introducing evidence or questioning witnesses concerning specific allegations against Mr. Westrick, the related polygraph test, the accidental shooting incident, and the fireworks accident.