Jones v. Drinkard

E.D. Arkansas

Jones v. Drinkard

DecidedJanuary 10, 2024

Docket3:20-cv-00166

StatusUnknown

This text of Jones v. Drinkard (Jones v. Drinkard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Drinkard, (E.D. Ark. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER D. JONES ADC #611484 PLAINTIFF

v. No. 3:20-cv-166-DPM-JTR KENDALL DRINKARD, Sergeant, NCU; ALEXANDER DELGADO, Corporal, NCU; KEITH DAY, Major NCU; and RICHARD COLLIE, Corporal, NCU DEFENDANTS

ORDER Drinkard’s, Day’s, Delgado’s, and Collie’s motion in limine, Doc. 102, is partly granted and partly denied. Here are the Court’s rulings: e Affidavits in Doc. 68. Granted as modified. The hearsay rule bars the affidavits as substantive evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Whether they may be used at trial for some other purpose under the Rules will abide the event. e Evidence of Other Lawsuits. Granted as modified. After Jones filed this case, he sued Drinkard over a separate incident. Jones v. Drinkard, Case No. 3:21-cv-172-BSM (E.D. Ark. 2023). That case has little relevance, if any, to Jones’s excessive force claims here. Evidence of it will be excluded. Fed. R. Evid. 403; see also Trotter v. Lawson, 997 F.3d 819, 821-22 (8th Cir. 2021).

e Evidence & Testimony Relating to Jeremy Alman. Denied without prejudice. The defendants haven't identified which evidence they seek to exclude. The Court can’t balance the probative value and prejudicial effect without more. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. e Evidence Not Produced During Discovery. Granted with a caveat. Counsel and the Court may agree on some unexpected new and necessary piece of evidence. So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 10 _rnuonry AD2Y

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER D. JONES ADC #611484 PLAINTIFF

v. No. 3:20-cv-166-DPM-JTR KENDALL DRINKARD, Sergeant, NCU; ALEXANDER DELGADO, Corporal, NCU; KEITH DAY, Major NCU; and RICHARD COLLIE, Corporal, NCU DEFENDANTS

ORDER Drinkard’s, Day’s, Delgado’s, and Collie’s motion in limine, Doc. 102, is partly granted and partly denied. Here are the Court’s rulings: e Affidavits in Doc. 68. Granted as modified. The hearsay rule bars the affidavits as substantive evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Whether they may be used at trial for some other purpose under the Rules will abide the event. e Evidence of Other Lawsuits. Granted as modified. After Jones filed this case, he sued Drinkard over a separate incident. Jones v. Drinkard, Case No. 3:21-cv-172-BSM (E.D. Ark. 2023). That case has little relevance, if any, to Jones’s excessive force claims here. Evidence of it will be excluded. Fed. R. Evid. 403; see also Trotter v. Lawson, 997 F.3d 819, 821-22 (8th Cir. 2021).

e Evidence & Testimony Relating to Jeremy Alman. Denied without prejudice. The defendants haven't identified which evidence they seek to exclude. The Court can’t balance the probative value and prejudicial effect without more. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. e Evidence Not Produced During Discovery. Granted with a caveat. Counsel and the Court may agree on some unexpected new and necessary piece of evidence. So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 10 _rnuonry AD2Y

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jones v. Drinkard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-drinkard-ared-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack