United States v. Karl Thompson, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

We consider the government’s interlocutory appeal of the district court’s pretrial exclusion of evidence. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 , and we affirm.

We review a district court’s pretrial exclusion of evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Bonds, 608 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir.2010). “[Pjretrial in limine evi-dentiary rulings are to be accorded the same deference on appeal as rulings made during trial.” United States v. Layton, 767 F.2d 549, 555 (9th Cir.1985). We do not reverse an evidentiary ruling under an abuse of discretion standard unless we are “ ‘convinced firmly that the reviewed decision lies beyond the pale of reasonable justification under the circumstances.’ ” Boyd v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 576 F.3d 938, 943 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir.2000)).

Here, the district court properly concluded that evidence of Otto Zehm’s inno cent conduct was relevant under Boyd, 576 F.3d at 944 (“[WJhere what the officer perceived just prior to the use of force is in dispute, evidence that may support one version of events over another is relevant and admissible.”). The district court, however,…