Summary
This United States District Court order denies plaintiff David Perez's motions for a new trial and for an extension of time to file an appeal. The court upheld evidentiary rulings admitting evidence of Perez's prior criminal conviction and drug test results, finding them relevant and admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court also rejected the request for additional appellate time, determining that Perez failed to show good cause or excusable neglect.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the admission of evidence of Perez's 2018 conviction and sentence warranted a new trial under Rule 59 and Rules 401, 403, 609.
- Whether the admission of evidence of Perez's drug use was improper under Rule 403 and warranted a new trial.
- Whether Perez was entitled to a sixty‑day extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
Holdings
- The court held that the evidence was admissible and did not cause substantial prejudice; the motion for new trial was denied.
- The court held that the drug‑use evidence was relevant to Perez's credibility and perception, its probative value outweighed prejudice; the motion for new trial was denied.
- The court denied the extension, finding no excusable neglect or good cause.
Key quotations
““a new trial is warranted only where the error has caused substantial prejudice to the affected party (or, stated somewhat differently, affected the party’s substantial rights or resulted in substantial injustice).”” (at 1162)
““Opening the door, also known as curative admissibility, occurs when a party offers inadmissible evidence before a jury.”” (at 1349)
““The Court does not rely on unpublished opinions as binding precedent; however, they may be cited in this Order when the Court finds them persuasive on a particular point.”” (at 1060-61)
Factual background
David Perez was arrested on February 2, 2017, alleging excessive force by police. At trial (February 5‑7, 2025) the jury returned a verdict for the defendants on all claims. Evidence admitted at trial included Perez's 2018 conviction and sentence, as well as medical records showing drug use around the time of the arrest.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights action alleging excessive force and battery. The case proceeded to trial in February 2025, resulting in a jury verdict for all defendants. Plaintiff subsequently moved for a new trial and for an extension of time to appeal; both motions were denied.