Wisdom v. Undercover Police Officer C0127

Citations: 879 F. Supp. 2d 339; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104579; 2012 WL 3045669Docket: No. 10-CV-5876 (NGG)(MDG)

Court: District Court, E.D. New York; July 26, 2012; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis addressed cross-motions in limine and a joint request to amend the case caption in a civil rights case involving plaintiff Nico Wisdom. The court granted and denied parts of both the plaintiffs' and defendants' motions and approved the amendment to the case caption.

Wisdom's initial motion sought to exclude evidence of third-party Christopher Mason's state-court conviction and to bar defense witnesses from vouching for the defendants' credibility. He later supplemented his motion to also preclude Mason's criminal court file and any evidence of his prior arrests. In response, the defendants filed their own motion to exclude Wisdom from the courtroom during a testimony and expanded their request to prevent Wisdom from introducing various pieces of evidence, including his arrest record and related documents. They also opposed Wisdom's attempt to exclude evidence of his prior arrests and Mason's conviction.

The court found that evidence of Mason's conviction is pertinent to the issue of probable cause, which is central to Wisdom's false arrest claim, as both men were arrested at the same location. The defendants argued that Wisdom acted as a lookout while Mason allegedly sold drugs. The court noted that while Mason's conviction is relevant to establishing probable cause, its admissibility is limited due to the potential for unfair prejudice, as the jury could improperly infer Wisdom's guilt in Mason's crime based on this evidence. The court emphasized the need to manage how such evidence is presented to avoid misleading inferences.

The jury will only hear essential evidence regarding Mason's arrest alongside Wisdom and his subsequent conviction, as additional details would pose a prejudicial risk that outweighs their probative value, in accordance with Fed. R. Evid. 403. Wisdom’s request to prevent certain defense witnesses from vouching for defendants' credibility or providing legal conclusions is granted, as it is unopposed and legally sound, referencing Cameron v. City of New York, which prohibits such testimony. Conversely, Wisdom's motion to exclude evidence of his prior arrests is denied, as both parties agree it is relevant to damages, supported by case law in the circuit. However, this evidence is deemed irrelevant to the defendants’ liability and could unfairly sway the jury regarding the probable cause of Wisdom's arrest. To mitigate potential prejudice, the trial will be bifurcated into liability and damages phases.

Regarding the defendants' motion in limine concerning Undercover Police Officer C0127, who is a defendant, they seek measures to protect his identity during the trial, including closed-circuit viewing and courtroom closure during his testimony. Wisdom consents to the closure but insists on remaining in the courtroom, a position the court supports, as it finds no precedent for excluding a litigant from their own trial for such reasons. The court is not convinced that Wisdom's presence would significantly compromise Officer C0127’s safety, given the circumstances of their arrest.

The court rejects the defendants' claim that allowing Wisdom's lawyer to see the face of Undercover Police Officer C0127 poses less risk to the officer's cover than if Wisdom viewed him as well, citing insufficient details about the proximity of Wisdom and his counsel to the officer's operational area. Excluding Wisdom from observing the proceedings would prejudice his ability to assist in his defense, as he is more familiar with the context of his arrest than his counsel. The courtroom will remain open to the public during Officer C0127’s testimony, affirming the public's First Amendment right to attend civil proceedings, unless the defendants provide sufficient legal justification otherwise.

The court grants the defendants' requests concerning Officer C0127's presence outside the courtroom during non-testimonial periods and allows for the officer’s discreet arrival and departure. The defendants' request to prevent Wisdom from introducing evidence regarding the dismissal of his criminal charge is denied, as this evidence is pertinent to the question of probable cause and necessary for Wisdom's false arrest claim. The court reserves judgment on other aspects of the defendants' motion due to the lack of supporting documents from the defendants.

An amendment to the case caption is granted, limiting the remaining defendants to Undercover Police Officer C0127, Detective Alex Rosario, and Detective Mark Holder, following the withdrawal of claims against others. The defendants may introduce evidence of Christopher Mason’s conviction related to Wisdom's arrest, confined to essential facts. All witnesses are barred from commenting on the credibility of others or providing legal conclusions. The trial will be bifurcated into liability and damages phases, with prior arrests of Wisdom admissible only during the damages phase. The courtroom will remain open unless the defendants renew their closure application.

Undercover Police Officer C0127 is permitted to observe court proceedings from a separate room unless called to testify. The defendants can coordinate with the United States Marshal Service for Officer C0127's discreet entry and exit to the courthouse. Wisdom is allowed to present evidence regarding the outcome of his criminal charges, unless a stipulation indicates that his arrest did not lead to a conviction. The Clerk of Court is instructed to amend the case caption as specified. Probable cause is an important aspect of the defendants' qualified immunity defense, as referenced in Caceres v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J. The parties may agree on facts, which could render related evidence about Mason's conviction redundant and potentially inadmissible under Rule 403. If Wisdom were representing himself, he would have the right to cross-examine Officer C0127 and view his face, raising questions about why this right should change simply because he has hired legal counsel.