Clarence Steelman v. Hunter Sulecki, In His Individual Capacity as a Police Officer for the Shannon Hills Police Department
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION
CLARENCE STEELMAN PLAINTIFF
Vv. No. 4:23-cv-1068-DPM
HUNTER SULECKI, In His Individual Capacity as a Police Officer for the Shannon Hills Police Department DEFENDANT
ORDER Schedule. To better manage the Court’s schedule, and provide everyone time to get back up to speed after a holiday weekend, the Court amends the Amended Final Scheduling Order, Doc. 11. Trial will begin on Tuesday, 7 July 2026. The Court will hold a pretrial with counsel from 11:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. We’ll start with the venire at 1:00 p.m. We will pick the jury, do preliminary instructions, and open Tuesday afternoon. We'll start the proof at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday. Jury Instructions. The Court is attaching its current working drafts of (1) the voir dire, (2) the preliminary instructions, (3) the final instructions—liability phase, (4) verdict no. 1, (5) the final instructions — excessive force and damages phase, (6) verdict no. 2, and (7) verdict no. 3. Please file any suggested changes or objections by Tuesday, 30 June 2026. Note the Court’s revised draft fact questions. We will refine these depending on the evidence at trial.
Battery Claim. The Court wonders how best to handle this claim, which appears wholly or mostly duplicative. It gums up the instructions a bit. (See, for example, the instructions about the different standards for punitives under federal and state law, the differing rules on whether nominal damages will support punitive damages’, and the third verdict form). The Court requests counsel to consider and confer about alternatives. The Court sees two: Steelman could dismiss the battery claim without prejudice; or the Court could handle that claim by agreement— based on the jury’s answers to the fact questions, the Court’s decision on qualified immunity, and the jury’s decision on excessive force in phase 2, if we get there. Joint report with counsels’ thoughts due by Tuesday, June 30th. Witnesses and Exhibits. Submit your lists of potential witnesses and exhibits using the Court’s forms to chambers by 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 1st. Two bound sets of exhibits (one original and one copy), plus a digital copy of all exhibits, should be submitted to chambers on that date, too. Video and audio exhibits must be in .mp3 or .mp4 format. If the parties plan to use electronic exhibits, they should have paper copies available as a fall-back. Contact the Courtroom Deputy to test technology in advance of the trial.
* Compare Goodwin v. Circuit Court of St. Louis County, 729 F.2d 541, 548 (8th Cir. 1984) (yes, under federal law), with Stoner v. Houston, 265 Ark. 928, 933, 582 S.W.2d 28, 31 (1979) (no, under Arkansas law). sf
Voir Dire. The Court will conduct the basic questioning, with ten minutes of follow-up by each side. Please focus your questioning. Voir dire is not a time to explain the law or the burden of proof, to explain what the case is about, to seek commitments, or to pump the potential jurors full of fairness. Instead, please ask lean questions about potential jurors’ experiences and views to ferret out bias. If the parties would prefer to have the Court ask certain questions, please submit them to chambers for consideration by June 30th with any comments on the draft instructions. Openings and Closings. Fifteen minutes a side for opening. Twenty minutes a side for closing. Evidence. Each side will have six hours to present their evidence. All direct and cross examination counts against your total. The time spent handling objections will be charged to the objecting party. Juror questions, and the related conferences, will be charged to the Court. (Note the jury instruction about juror questions, too.) Objections. Avoid speaking objections during the trial. A word or two will do. If the Court needs to hear more, then the Court will call counsel forward for a bench or hall conference.
es
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge AF June AORL
_4-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Clarence Steelman v. Hunter Sulecki, In His Individual Capacity as a Police Officer for the Shannon Hills Police Department (Clarence Steelman v. Hunter Sulecki, In His Individual Capacity as a Police Officer for the Shannon Hills Police Department) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.