Uribe v. Babienco et al, No. 3:2013cv01106 - Document 127 (N.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION RE RULE 608 EVIDENCE. Signed by Judge Alsup on 8/1/2016. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2016)
Download PDF
Uribe v. Babienco et al Doc. 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CESAR URIBE, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM OPINION RE RULE 608 EVIDENCE PHILIP BABIENCO, Defendant. / 15 16 No. C 13-01106 WHA This post-trial memorandum sets forth the basis for the Court’s ruling mid-trial to allow 17 plaintiff to be cross-examined about his forgery of a statement by another witness in another 18 case. In 2011, a magistrate judge in a separate case made a finding that our plaintiff (also the 19 plaintiff in that case) had submitted a false, forged declaration. At our pretrial conference, 20 defendant’s counsel sought permission to use this event to impeach plaintiff. The Court 21 deferred ruling on this until (1) plaintiff had actually testified and (2) the Court could assess the 22 extent to which plaintiff’s credibility was an issue for the jury to consider. The Court felt that 23 the subject should not be broached unless plaintiff’s credibility was substantially in play. The 24 Court listened to the entire direct examination of plaintiff and all of the cross-examination 25 except for this one subject and made a determination at that point that plaintiff’s credibility was 26 sufficiently at issue to permit cross-examination under Federal Rules of Evidence 608(b) and 27 403. The Court limited the examination to what plaintiff himself did rather than what the judge 28 found in her sanctions order. (During cross-examination, however, plaintiff himself referred to the judge’s finding.) Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Under Rule 403, the probative value of the information outweighed the prejudicial effect of the information. Plaintiff’s credibility was in play on at least the following issues: 3 1. The actual extent of plaintiff’s pain; and 4 2. What plaintiff knew about the actual balance of his prison trust account and 5 when he knew it. 6 7 Dated: August 1, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2