Federal prosecutors are looking to block the use of references to Tyre Nichols’ alleged “bad” character and alleged “bad” conduct by defense counsel for the five officers accused of beating him to death in January in pretrial motions and during trial.

Prosecutors filed a motion in limine late Friday in the federal criminal case against the officers, a type of motion that seeks to exclude certain testimony from defense counsel in the case. 

In this case, that testimony is recent allegations that were made about Nichols, namely that he had hallucinogenic mushrooms and stolen debit, credit and ID cards in his car the night that he was beaten.

Judge rules ‘Red Dog’ claims admissible in Nichols’ civil suit

Michael Stengel, who represents Demetrius Haley, filed a motion on Oct. 5 to compel prosecutors to turn over Nichols’ cellphone records. Prosecutors admitted they had “dumped” his cellphone but had not reviewed the records and would not turn them over during discovery, citing they were irrelevant. 

In a notice of joinder the same day, Martin Zummach, who represents Justin Smith, made the allegations about what was apparently found in Nichols’ car.

John Keith Perry, who represents former officer Tadarrius Bean, filed a motion to join the two on Oct. 10. 

Smith, Haley, Bean along with Desmond Mills and Emmitt Martin III, who are also facing state criminal charges, were all indicted on federal charges on Sept. 12.

They were each indicted on four counts: two federal counts related to the deprivation of civil rights and two federal counts related to witness tampering.

Former MPD members file motion to dismiss Tyre Nichols lawsuit

The first two counts allege that the officers used excessive force when they beat Nichols and failed to give him proper medical attention. The latter two counts allege that they conspired to and gave false accounts of their interactions with Nichols to their supervisors.

Stengel filed a later motion on Oct. 12, saying he had received access to the phone records, declaring his original motion to compel moot. Instead, he asked for an index of the records.

In the Friday filing, prosecutors asked the court to enter an order excluding the reference of Nichols’ alleged “bad” character and “bad” conduct in public pretrial filings and during trial, arguing that not only are the recent allegations about him irrelevant but they also could taint the potential jury pool. 

“In any event, such evidence is categorically irrelevant to any potential defense and should be excluded. There is no evidence that any defendant knew anything at all about Mr. Nichols, including any actions he took or any character he demonstrated, prior to encountering him on the date they assaulted him. Such evidence is therefore wholly irrelevant to the charged offenses,” the government wrote.

Citing the Federal Rules of Evidence, the government also argued that using the allegations in court could mislead a potential jury.

‘Judicial economy’ keeps trial together for five charged in Tyre Nichols’ death

“Character evidence relating to a victim is exactly the type of evidence that risks causing unfair prejudice because of the potential that it will be used simply to tarnish a victim by suggesting a propensity to commit bad acts, thus encouraging jury nullification,” prosecutors wrote.

The officers could submit evidence of what they “reasonably perceived” at the time they beat him under the rules, prosecutors said, but could not present evidence about information they didn’t have at the time. 

They also said that allegations that disparage Nichols’ character, to which he can’t respond, should also be excluded from use. 

Prosecutors argued that the order should apply to pretrial fillings in addition to during trial because the allegations were made in past public filings, like Zummach’s notice of joinder, which garnered local and national media attention.

Granting the motion would stop defense counsel from trying to dig into Nichols’ past and use it as a defense and would also protect the integrity of the case going forward, prosectors wrote.

“Speculative and inflammatory accusations offered in public filings and media interviews ‘risk prejudicing the government’s case with the jury pool, even though the allegations may end up playing no role at trial in this case,” prosecutors wrote.