United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY ON CITY DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
1995, Mr. Goudy was tried and convicted of murder and
attempted murder in connection with a shooting that occurred
on October 3, 1993, when two men fired multiple shots into an
occupied car in Anderson, Indiana. In 2010, Mr. Goudy was
granted habeas relief by the Seventh Circuit. He subsequently
filed this lawsuit in which he alleges that he was denied a
fair criminal trial based on Defendants' alleged
withholding of Brady material, to wit, police notes
from an interview of Kaidi Harvell (the primary witness
against Mr. Goudy in his criminal trial) in which Mr. Harvell
provided a story that conflicted with his subsequent
testimony at Mr. Goudy's criminal trial and a videotape
of a police line-up in which multiple witnesses identified
Mr. Harvell as one of the two shooters. Some of these same
witnesses identified Mr. Goudy as the other shooter.
to Mr. Goudy's criminal trial, his half-brother, Romeo
Lee, confessed to police that he had been one of the two
shooters, that he and Mr. Goudy were often mistaken for each
other, and that Mr. Harvell-not Mr. Goudy-was the other
shooter. Although Mr. Goudy's defense attorney, Mark
Maynard, had possession of a video recording of Mr. Lee's
confession at the time of Mr. Goudy's criminal trial, Mr.
Maynard did not introduce the confession as evidence in that
trial or develop that theory of defense on behalf of Mr.
Goudy. Following Mr. Goudy's trial and conviction,
Defendant Cummings, Madison County Prosecutor, successfully
prosecuted Mr. Lee for murder and attempted murder in the
role as the second shooter.
have filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude from the
upcoming trial on Mr. Goudy's § 1983 fair trial
claim any mention of Mr. Lee's confession and conviction
on the grounds that this evidence, though available to Mr.
Goudy's defense counsel, was not presented to the jury
during Mr. Goudy's criminal trial based on Mr.
Maynard's strategic decision, and thus, is not relevant
to the jury's determination of whether the withholding of
Brady material denied him a fair trial in violation
of § 1983. Plaintiff rejoins that the evidence of Mr.
Lee's confession and conviction is highly relevant to his
§ 1983 fair-trial claim, particularly as to the issues
of materiality, to Defendant Cummings's motive for
withholding Brady evidence, and to the nature and
extent of Mr. Goudy's damages.
agree with Mr. Goudy that Mr. Lee's confession as well as
the fact that Mr. Lee was subsequently prosecuted by
Defendant Cummings and successfully convicted as the second
shooter is relevant evidence as to Cummings's motive for
withholding the Brady evidence. The confession is
also relevant as to the extent of the harm suffered by Mr.
Goudy in that it is evidence supporting his innocence.
See Parish v. Elkhart, 702 F.3d 997, 1001 (7th Cir.
2012) (finding evidence of innocence not presented at
underlying criminal trial relevant to determination of
damages in wrongful conviction case).
Lee's confession may be relevant to the element of
materiality as well. In considering materiality, the
factfinder must “carefully assess[ ] what purposes the
suppressed evidence might have served …” in
determining its effect on the proceeding. Boss v.
Pierce, 263 F.3d 734, 745 (7th Cir. 2001). Although a
somewhat attenuated theory, Mr. Goudy's counsel argues
that Attorney Maynard is expected to testify that had he had
access to the withheld Brady evidence it would have
strengthened the credibility of what was at the time an
uncorroborated confession by Mr. Lee. Thus, the withheld
Brady evidence impacted his decision not to
introduce Mr. Lee's confession at Mr. Goudy's trial.
The Lee confession along with the withheld Brady
material inculpating Mr. Harvell would, according to
Plaintiff here, have strengthened Mr. Goudy's defense,
rendering the withholding of the Brady evidence a
material matter under § 1983. We accept this theory in
allowing the evidence to come in.
said, the relevance of Mr. Lee's confession and
conviction relates only to the effect such evidence may have
had on the decisions made by Defendant Cummings and Mr.
Maynard at the time of Mr. Goudy's criminal trial. The
facts of the confession and conviction can and should come
into evidence through those two witnesses. Plaintiff's
counsel has indicated that they intend to call Mr. Lee as a
witness to testify to the fact and the truth of his
confession, even though that evidence was not adduced during
Mr. Goudy's criminal trial. We are of the view that given
the limited use and relevance of the Lee confession and
conviction, the potential prejudice that would result from
his personal appearance at trial would far exceed their
City Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 6 is GRANTED IN
PART to the extent that Mr. Lee will not be permitted to
testify in person to these issues and DENIED IN PART
as to Defendants' request to exclude all references to
the fact and content of Mr. Lee's confession and
subsequent conviction. Stated otherwise, Plaintiff will be
permitted to introduce evidence establishing the fact and
content of Mr. Lee's confession as well as the fact of
his conviction ...