Deangelo Bowman v. Terry Vankeuren, Jr. and Noah Pillsbury

Summary

The court addresses Plaintiff DeAngelo Bowman's motion in limine concerning statements he made during a City of Flint Police Department Internal Affairs interview following his arrest. The court holds that the statements are admissible as opposing-party statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A) and are not excludable under Rule 403 based on the absence of Miranda warnings or counsel. The court denies the request to exclude the statements and declines to strike the witness who can authenticate them.

Holdings

1. Bowman's statements made during the Internal Affairs interview are admissible against him under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A), at least for use if he testifies inconsistently at trial.
2. Bowman's statements to police were not rendered inadmissible in this civil case merely because he was not given Miranda warnings, advised of a right to counsel, or told that the statements might be used in civil litigation.
3. The court declined to exclude the statements under Rule 403 because Bowman's asserted prejudice was vague and conclusory and the circumstances of the interview did not establish unfair prejudice substantially outweighing probative value.
4. Lieutenant Dixon would not be stricken because he was the appropriate witness to authenticate Bowman's statements.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bowman's statements during the Internal Affairs interview were inadmissible hearsay when offered against him.
2. Whether the statements should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because they were obtained without Miranda warnings, counsel, or notice that they could be used in civil litigation.
3. Whether Lieutenant Dixon should be stricken as a witness because his only relevant involvement was authenticating or presenting Bowman's Internal Affairs statements.

Disposition

other