Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

08-1762 Romanelli v. Suliene

By: dmc-admin//August 16, 2010//

08-1762 Romanelli v. Suliene

By: dmc-admin//August 16, 2010//

Listen to this article

Evidence
Prior convictions

In a prisoner's civil rights case, it was not error to admit evidence of his prior convictions.
"Here, at the time of the court's rulings on the evidence, the jury was already aware that the lawsuit was a prisoner's civil rights case. Furthermore, Romanelli confirmed his criminal history in his opening argument. With this in mind, the district court exercised its discretion to admit the evidence of his felony convictions for sexual assault and bail jumping, and his twenty-two misdemeanor convictions for issuing worthless checks, while excluding evidence of his convictions for resisting/obstructing an officer and failing to report as a sex offender. Before the defendants ever questioned Romanelli regarding his prior convictions, Romanelli chose to describe in detail his version of the events underlying each conviction. Almost all the facts relating to the sexual assault conviction that Romanelli contends were highly prejudicial were brought into the record by Romanelli himself. Despite having opened the door to questions further highlighting these convictions, the defendants limited their cross-examination to two nonsensational, factual questions that merely confirmed his criminal record. Finally, the district court provided post-trial limiting instructions detailing how the jury should consider that evidence."

"We conclude that the district court was well within its discretion in admitting evidence of Romanelli's prior convictions. We note, however, that even if there had been error as a result of the admission of Romanelli's conviction for sexual assault, such error would have been harmless. The outcome in this case turned on Romanelli's utter lack of personal credibility and the paucity of corroborating evidence to support his claims-not on what the jury heard with respect to his prior convictions. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion."

Affirmed.

08-1762 Romanelli v. Suliene

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crocker, Mag. J., Kanne, J.

Full Text

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests