Young v. Rios et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GEORGE SOLER YOUNG, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-15-641-G
)
HECTOR A. RIOS et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Now before the Court is Plaintiff George Soler Young’s Motion in Limine (Doc.
No. 248). Defendants1 have responded (Doc. No. 257), and Plaintiff has filed a Reply
(Doc. No. 262).
I. Applicable Law
A motion in limine is a “pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be
referred to or offered at trial.” Edens v. The Netherlands Ins. Co., 834 F.3d 1116, 1130
(10th Cir. 2016) (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). Through such a motion,
a party may “request . . . guidance by the court regarding an evidentiary question, which
the court may provide at its discretion to aid the parties in formulating trial strategy.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). “A court’s in limine rulings are preliminary and are
subject to change as the case unfolds or at its discretion.” Godfrey v. CSAA Fire & Cas.
Ins. Co., No. CIV-19-329-JD, 2020 WL 1056306, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 4, 2020) (citing
1 Defendants are Warden Hector A. Rios, Emosi Time a/k/a Taime, Marion Roody, Mario
Rauch, Jermaine Wiltshire, Larry Jones, and Robert Benoit.
Case 5:15-cv-00641-G Document 273 Filed 06/04/25 Page 1 of 6

2
Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41-42 (1984)).
II. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine
Plaintiff requests that the Court prohibit Defendants from introducing evidence or
asking questions related to Plaintiff’s prior criminal convictions. See Pl.’s Mot. at 1.
Specifically, Plaintiff has four felony state-court criminal convictions: a 1983 conviction
for first-degree manslaughter; a 1990 conviction for second-degree forgery; a 1994
conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon; and a 1994 conviction for
robbery with a dangerous weapon. See id. at 3-4, 9; id. Ex. 1 (Doc. No. 248-1). Plaintiff
also has a 1990 misdemeanor conviction for illegal entry into a building and attempting to
elude a police officer. Pl.’s Mot. at 3-4.; id. Ex. 2 (Doc. No. 248-2).
Defendants respond that they will not offer evidence or elicit testimony regarding
the 1990 conviction for second-degree forgery or the 1990 misdemeanor conviction. See
Defs.’ Resp. at 1. To that extent, Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine is GRANTED.
A. Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b)
Plaintiff argues that the 1983 conviction for first-degree manslaughter (the
“Manslaughter Conviction”) and the 1994 conviction for assault and battery with a
dangerous weapon (the “A&B Conviction”) should be excluded pursuant to Federal Rule
of Evidence 609(b). See Pl.’s Mot. at 2-4, 7-9. That Rule provides:
b) Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This subdivision (b)
applies if more than 10 years have passed since the witness’s conviction or
release from confinement for it, whichever is later. Evidence of the
conviction is admissible only if:
(1) its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances,
substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect; and
Case 5:15-cv-00641-G Document 273 Filed 06/04/25 Page 2 of 6

3
(2) the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written notice of the
intent to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity to contest its use.
Fed. R. Evid. 609(b).
Defendants argue that evidence of these convictions should be permitted because:
Defendants “knew” they were dealing with someone with a “multiple-time documented
history of violence”; the convictions “pertain[] to how much credibility” to give Plaintiff
and “why Defendants dealt cautiously with Plaintiff”; and “jurors need to know of
Plaintiff’s violent past to help understand why it took as many correctional personnel as it
did to escort Plaintiff from cell to cell at the facility.” Defs.’ Resp. at 3.
While these are conceivably probative purposes, Defendants do not provide a single
citation to the record in support of the underlying factual contentions. And, as noted by
Plaintiff, at least two Defendants have testified that the involvement of multiple
correctional officers with an inmate transfer is not unusual, depending on the
circumstances. See Pl.’s Reply at 1-2. Plaintiff also argues that there is no evidence that
Defendants were actually aware of the Manslaughter and A&B Convictions or that,
relevant to the retaliatory-transfer claim, Plaintiff was moved to another facility because of
alleged violent behavior. See id. at 2.
Having considered the parties’ arguments and the relevant record, the Court
concludes that Defendants have not shown that the probative value of these convictions
“substantially outweighs” their prejudicial effect. Fed. R. Evid. 609(b)(1); see also id. R.
609(b) advisory committee’s note to 1974 enactment (“It is intended that convictions over
10 years old will be admitted very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances.”).
Case 5:15-cv-00641-G Document 273 Filed 06/04/25 Page 3 of 6

4
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine is GRANTED as to exclusion of evidence regarding the
Manslaughter and A&B Convictions.
B. Federal Rules of Evidence 609(a)(1) and 403
In 2013, when Plaintiff suffered the alleged sexual assault for which he seeks relief
in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Plaintiff was serving a 40-year sentence imposed for the
1994 conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon (the “Robbery Conviction”). As
Plaintiff is still serving this sentence, Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) applies to
Defendants’ effort to use evidence of the Robbery Conviction for impeachment:
(a) In General. The following rules apply to attacking a witness’s character
for truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction:
(1) for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by
death or by imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence:
(A) must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case or in a
criminal case in which the witness is not a defendant[.]
Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1).
Rule 403 prescribes:
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair
prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting
time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
Id. R. 403.
Plaintiff argues that any probative value of the Robbery Conviction would be far
outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Plaintiff. See Pl.’s Mot. at 9-12 (“Instead of
focusing on whether Defendants assaulted and retaliated against [Plaintiff], jurors may be
influenced by irrelevant but emotionally charged information about his past convictions,
Case 5:15-cv-00641-G Document 273 Filed 06/04/25 Page 4 of 6

5
undermining his ability to receive a fair trial.”). Defendants respond only that admission
is warranted because of the prison officials’ awareness of Plaintiff’s criminal history—a
proposition for which, as noted above, there has been no evidence presented to the Court—
and because “‘the exclusion of relevant evidence under Rule 403 is an extraordinary
remedy to be used sparingly.’” Defs.’ Resp. at 2-3 (quoting Wheeler v. John Deere Co.,
862 F.2d 1404, 1408 (10th Cir. 1988)).
While the fact that Plaintiff was incarcerated in 2013 is clearly relevant, the Court
concludes that the minimal probative value of the nature of the offense is “substantially
outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” Fed. R. Evid. 403; see id. advisory
committee’s note (1972) (“‘Unfair prejudice’ means an undue tendency to suggest decision
on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.”). Absent
some connection to a question to be answered at trial, such evidence risks “provok[ing] an
emotional response in the jury” or “suggest[ing] decision on an improper basis” and
“divert[ing] the jury’s attention from the material issues at trial.” United States v. Cerno,
529 F.2d 926, 935 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Wright, 993 F.3d 1054, 1061 (8th Cir.
2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants may present
the fact that, at the time of the 2013 alleged sexual assault, Plaintiff was serving a term of
imprisonment imposed for conviction of a state felony offense. Defendants may not
introduce evidence of the nature of the offense, the date that Plaintiff was convicted or
commenced his sentence, the length of the sentence imposed, or the fact that Plaintiff is
still incarcerated upon that sentence. See Fed. R. Evid. 403, 609(a)(1)(A); Howell v.
Case 5:15-cv-00641-G Document 273 Filed 06/04/25 Page 5 of 6

6
Trammell, 285 F.3d 1263, 1270 (10th Cir. 2002) (“After conducting the Rule 403
balancing, the court may determine that evidence of the conviction, or certain aspects of
evidence of the conviction, are properly excluded.”).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 248) therefore is GRANTED to the extent
outlined herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of June, 2025.
Case 5:15-cv-00641-G Document 273 Filed 06/04/25 Page 6 of 6