The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge McClure
On March 28, 2003, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County at docket number 2003-CV-1452. Shortly thereafter the matter was removed to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On October 6, 2005, the court granted defendant City of Harrisburg's motion for summary judgment and denied the other defendants' motions for summary judgment. Upon a motion for reconsideration, on January 19, 2006, the court granted defendant County of Dauphin's motion for summary judgment. The case is currently scheduled for the April 2006 trial list. Now before the court is Defendant Roadcap's Motion in Limine to Prohibit Introduction of Evidence or Testimony Relating to the Civil Matter Involving Barry Laughman (Rec. Doc. No. 205) and Joint Motion in Limine of All Defendants to Exclude Evidence of Prior Acts of Defendant Balshy (Rec. Doc. No. 208). For the following reasons we will grant both motions.
I. Relevant Facts Regarding Defendant Roadcap
Defendant Janice Roadcap is accused of having knowingly made a false chemist report involving a key piece of evidence in the conviction of Crawford. Roadcap's final report stated that the results of the test "indicates the presence of blood deposited by the donor of the print." There are two versions of her internal notes which conflict in their discussion of the presence of blood on the print. The first version states: "7. This reaction was greater along the ridges of the fingerprint, however numerous particles in the valleys also gave a () [positive] reaction." (Rec. Doc. No. 1, Ex. A.) The second version states: "7. This reaction was [blacked out text] only along the ridge of the fingerprint [blacked out text] pattern". (Rec. Doc. No. 1, Ex. B.). Ultimately, it was the discovery of the first version of the note that led to Crawford being released from prison.
Plaintiff alleges that Roadcap doctored her internal notes in order to repudiate one of Crawford's defense theories, i.e., that the blood was dispersed across the print because it was splattered onto an pre-existing print of Crawford's on his father's car rather than being transferred to the car by Crawford's bloody hand.
Defendant Roadcap is also alleged to have doctored evidence in the Commonwealth's prosecution of Barry Laughman. Laughman was released from prison after serving sixteen years behind bars for the rape and murder of a woman, a case in which DNA evidence later exonerated him. Laughman has sued Roadcap and others in a civil case pending in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Laughman v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 05-CV-1033 (M.D. Pa.) (Kane, J.). Defendant Roadcap seeks to preclude introduction of evidence or testimony relating to Laughman.
II. Relevant Facts Regarding Defendant Balshy
Balshy is accused, along with others, of having adulterated and concealed the original lab notes about the palm print evidence used in Crawford's prosecution. This evidence, as mentioned above, supported Crawford's defense at his criminal trial. Defendants anticipate that plaintiff will seek to admit at trial evidence that Balshy conspired with others to plant fingerprint evidence in an unrelated state murder prosecution of Gary Rank. After Rank was acquitted in a criminal homicide prosecution he brought a civil rights action against Balshy and others. Ultimately, on November 5, 1982, the jury at Rank's civil trial returned a verdict against Balshy for $13,500.00 in compensatory damages and $5,000.00 in punitive damages. Rank v. Balshy, 590 F.Supp. 787, 793 (1984).
Defendants also anticipate that plaintiffs may seek to admit at trial evidence that Balshy allegedly committed bad acts in connection with the homicide prosecution of Jay Smith for the murder of Susan Reinert. Balshy was assigned to the Reinert investigation, and was present during her autopsy. During cross-examination at Smith's murder trial, Balshy testified that he used lifters to remove granular particles which looked like sand from between the victim's toes. The presence of sand on Reinert's feet supported the defense's theory of the case. Prosecutors had not disclosed the presence of lifters to the Smith or his trial counsel, nor were they introduced into evidence. After the trial, at the request of the prosecutor, both the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania State Police conducted perjury investigations against Balshy. Both concluded that there was no evidence of perjury or falsification of evidence by Balshy. Ultimately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court barred Smith's retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution based on police and prosecutorial misconduct relating to the suppression of evidence. Commonwealth v. Smith, 615 A.2d 321, 323 (Pa. 1992). In that opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that Balshy was "made the scapegoat for the misconduct" of the Commonwealth. Id. Smith brought a subsequent civil action against officers, but Balshy was not sued, and the defendants were ultimately found not liable. Balshy has never been found criminally or civilly liable for any of his actions in connection with the Reinert murder investigation.
III. Rules of Evidence Applied to the Motions
The plaintiff argues that testimony and evidence relating to the civil matter involving Barry Laughman and the testimony and evidence relating to Balshy's conduct in the Rank and Smith matters, and the subsequent investigations and litigation, are admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 608(b). Furthermore, plaintiff argues that admission of testimony and evidence relating to Roadcap's and Balshy's conduct in these prior cases will not be unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) prohibits evidence of other wrongs or acts if offered "to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith." The rule then provides a list of purposes which are exceptions to the general rule and for which evidence of other wrongs or acts may be offered. We cannot find that evidence or testimony relating to allegations made by Barry Laughman against defendant Roadcap constitutes admissible evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Likewise, we cannot find that the evidence or testimony relating to Balshy's involvement in the Rank or Smith cases constitutes admissible evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Plaintiff's argument that the evidence would be offered to show motive and opportunity, which appears in his briefs in opposition to both the Roadcap and Balshy "bad act" motions in limine, does not make sense. We find that most of plaintiff's briefs in opposition are devoted to stressing ...