Harden v. Hillman
| Decision Date | 05 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:15-CV-594-CHB |
| Parties | JOHN K. HARDEN, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER KEITH HILLMAN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
Following remand from the Sixth Circuit, on December 10 and 17, 2021 this Court held Remmer hearings to determine if racial bias impacted the jury's verdict. See Harden v. Hillman, 993 F.3d 465, 485 (6th cir. 2021). Pursuant to the Court's Order, [R. 237], Plaintiff John Harden and Defendant Keith Hillman both filed post-hearing briefs. [R 255; R. 256].[1]Shortly thereafter, Harden filed a Motion for Hearing, [R. 247]. Hillman responded and filed a Motion to Strike, [R. 249; R. 250]. Harden replied, [R. 252]. These matters are now ripe for consideration. For the reasons below, the Court finds that racial bias prejudicially affected the jury deliberations. Accordingly, Harden is entitled to a new trial. The Court further holds that Harden's Motion for Hearing is denied, and Hillman's Motion to Strike is denied as moot.
This action arises from an altercation between Harden and Hillman inside a Thorntons convenience store in Louisville, Kentucky. [R. 1; R. 243]. On the evening of August 1, 2014, Harden drank a couple of beers after work and fell asleep. Harden, 993 F.3d at 471. Around 1:20 a.m Harden woke up and headed toward a local Thorntons store to purchase more beer. Id. At that time, Hillman, an off-duty police officer for the City of Heritage Creek, was providing security for the Thorntons store. Id. When Harden attempted to purchase beer, the store clerk told Harden she would not serve him because it seemed that he had already had too much to drink, and she could smell alcohol on his breath. Id. Harden exclaimed, “I don't believe this.” Id. In response, Hillman shouted, “[D]idn't she say she wasn't selling you any beer.” Id. Hillman then told Harden to leave the store and not return. Id. Harden left the store, intending to head to another store to buy beer. Id. However, because Kentucky law prohibits the sale of beer after 2:00 a.m., Harden realized he would be unable to make it to another store in time to purchase the alcohol. Id. As a result, Harden decided to forgo purchasing more beer and, instead, returned to Thorntons to purchase a bag of chips. Id. Upon Harden's return, Hillman said, “I thought I told you not to come back in here.” Id. Hillman then ran over to Harden, pinned him against the counter, and told him that, if he did not leave the store immediately, Hillman would arrest him. Id. Harden replied, “[w]ell, take me to jail.” Id. Hillman then allegedly slammed Harden onto the floor and handcuffed him. Id. Hillman called for transport to the police station. Id. Id. At the hospital, Hillman issued Harden a citation for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and public intoxication. Id. Harden was released that night and the charges against him were eventually dismissed after Hillman failed to appear for court. Id.
On July 8, 2015, Harden filed suit against Hillman (in his official and individual capacities), the City of Heritage Creek, and Thorntons, Inc. [R. 1]. Judge Joseph McKinley eventually dismissed all Harden's claims aside from his excessive force claim against Hillman in his individual capacity. [R. 103; R. 171]; see also Harden, 993 F.3d at 472. On July 17, 2019, after a three-day trial, the jury found in favor of Hillman. [R. 169]. On August 15, 2019, Harden filed a Motion for New Trial based on the district court's refusal to order the Marshals Service to serve his subpoenas and defense counsel's alleged improper arguments during trial. [R. 181]; Harden, 993 F.3d at 472. The district court denied the Motion. [R. 199].
On November 1, 2019, Harden filed his second Motion for New Trial. [R. 202]. With permission of the district court, [R. 198], Harden's counsel, Aubrey Williams, contacted a juror whose stepfather, a practicing lawyer, had reached out to him about potential concerns with the jury deliberations. Harden submitted an affidavit[2]from Juror T.H., an African American, alongside his second Motion for New Trial. [R. 201; R. 202]. As recounted by the Sixth Circuit, T.H.'s affidavit stated:
[H]er She explained that her “fellow jurors, all of whom were white, spoke freely in [her] presence because they thought [she] was Latin[a] because of [her] complexion and the pronunciation of [her] name.” Specifically, she averred that her fellow jurors “discounted and totally disregarded Mr. Harden's testimony in particular and his case in general because they believed he was a crack addict, and that his intent was to start trouble with Officer Hillman so he could sue the police department and get some money,” and that “[t]hey discredited his testimony and attributed the calmness he showed in describing the events by claiming that he was taking dope or drinking during breaks in the trial.” T.H. further alleged that the jurors “took verbatim what Mr. Hillman's [white] attorney said but described [Harden's African American lawyer] and his team as the ‘Cosby Show.'” T.H. sought to remind her fellow jurors that their job was to decide whether Hillman had used excessive force; however, the jurors “kept saying he just wants money; he's a crack head; he's an alcoholic; look at his wife, she's nodding off; she looks like she's on heroin.” When T.H. explained that she was a nurse and that Harden “wouldn't be able to stay in the courtroom all these hours and stay focused if he was on drugs,” members of the jury replied, “you don't know what he's doing on breaks,” which T.H. understood to indicate a belief that Harden was “taking a swig during breaks to stay calm.” T.H. concluded: “It is my very firm and absolute belief that Mr. Harden did not get a fair trial because of his race and racial stereotyping. Furthermore, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the race of the lawyers was a significant factor. The jurors hung on [to Hillman's counsel's] every word but gave no consideration at all to [Harden's counsel's] points.
Harden, 993 F.3d at 472-73. Without holding a hearing to investigate Juror T.H.'s allegations, Judge McKinley denied Harden's second Motion for New Trial. [R. 206].
Harden appealed, [R. 207], arguing that the district court improperly (1) granted summary judgment on his Fourth Amendment claim; (2) denied his first Motion for New Trial; and (3) denied his second Motion for New Trial. Harden, 993 F.3d at 470. On April 6, 2021, the Sixth Circuit issued its opinion, affirming as to the first two claims and vacating the district court's denial of Harden's second Motion for New Trial. Id. at 471. As to Harden's second Motion for New Trial, the court found that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) barred inquiry into two of the Motion's allegations: (1) that a juror provided the jury with an incorrect legal standard and (2) that a juror lied during voir dire. Id. at 478.
As to the third allegation, that the jury's verdict was motivated by racial bias, the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court's denial of Harden's second Motion for New Trial, holding that, pursuant to Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S.Ct. 855 (2017), Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) did not bar inquiry into the issue. Harden, 993 F.3d at 478-82. Rule 606(b) prohibits jurors from testifying about jury deliberations, but “contains exceptions for when: ‘(A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention; (B) an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; and (C) a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form.'” Id. at 477 (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 606(b)(2)). In Pena-Rodriguez, the Supreme Court carved out another Rule 606(b) exception. The Pena-Rodriguez court held that when there is a “showing that one or more jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury's deliberation and resulting verdict,” “the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way[.]” 137 S.Ct. at 869. Id. In Harden, the Sixth Circuit, for the first time, expanded Pena-Rodriguez's holding to civil cases. 993 F.3d at 478-81 The Sixth Circuit held that, “[a]lthough the Sixth Amendment is unavailable, as it was in Pena-Rodriguez, to fulfill the Constitution's demand that racial discrimination be eliminated from the civil courtroom, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of ‘equal protection of the laws' provides a sufficient basis to extend Pena-Rodriguez to civil cases.” Id. at 481.
Based on Pena-Rodriguez and the unique importance of ridding the judicial system of racial prejudice, the Harden court held that the district court abused its discretion by not inquiring into the “statements exhibiting overt racial bias” contained in Juror T.H.'s affidavit. Id. at 481-85. In determining that the statements exhibited overt racial bias, the Sixth Circuit analyzed historical efforts to associate African Americans with drugs, like crack cocaine, which carry over into pervasive racial stereotyping in the present day. Id. at 482-83. Further, the Sixth Circuit rejected Hillman's argument that “none of the jurors could have been motivated by...
To continue reading
Request your trial