Williams v. Drake, 98-1014

• Decision Date: 02 June 1998
• Docket Number: No. 98-1014,98-1014
• Citation: 146 F.3d 44
• Parties: William L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Scott DRAKE and Fred Ford, Defendants, Appellants. . Heard
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 44

146 F.3d 44

41 Fed.R.Serv.3d 447

William L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Scott DRAKE and Fred Ford, Defendants, Appellants.

No. 98-1014.

United States Court of Appeals,

First Circuit.

Heard June 2, 1998.

Decided July 14, 1998.

Diane Sleek, Assistant Attorney General, State of Maine, with whom Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, and Peter J. Brann, Assistant Attorney General, were on brief, for appellants.

Stuart W. Tisdale, Jr. for appellee.

Before SELYA and BOUDIN, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, ^* Senior District Judge.

SELYA, Circuit Judge.

Two correctional officers, Scott Drake and Francis ("Fred") Ford, appeal from an adverse jury verdict awarding damages to a former prison inmate. They claim that the lower court erroneously excluded relevant evidence and improperly retained a juror whose mental faculties were suspect. Finding none of their animadversions persuasive, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In 1994, plaintiff-appellee William L. Williams resided in the minimum security cellblock at the Maine Correctional Institute-Warren (MCI-Warren). Prison regulations afforded him a daily three-hour recreational period. Inmates can spend this interlude indoors (i.e., in the dayroom, where they can watch television and make telephone calls) or outdoors (i.e., in the yard--a paved area where they can play basketball or exercise).

For obvious reasons, correctional officers keep inmates under constant observation during the recreational period. If an inmate desires to move from the yard to the dayroom, he first must approach the control booth (a glassed-in enclosure that overlooks the yard) and request permission. If leave is granted, the supervising correctional officer opens a door that separates the yard from the dayroom. Once inside, the inmate must remain within the area demarcated by a yellow line and receive a correctional officer's permission before crossing the line for any reason.

On June 19, 1994, Williams proceeded from the cellblock through the dayroom and into the yard. He played basketball for a while. During a hiatus, he reentered the dayroom (the door to which temporarily had been left open). Because the water fountain was located beyond the yellow line, Williams sought and received permission to slake his thirst. As he repaired to the yard, Ford approached him and asked if he needed to see the nurse. Williams replied that he did not, but expressed curiosity as to why Ford had inquired. When he did not receive an answer, he returned to the basketball game.

Minutes later, the scrimmage ended and Williams decided to get another drink. The door to the dayroom was closed, so he sought and received permission to enter. Once inside, he again sought and received permission to cross the yellow line en route to the water fountain. After sipping his fill, Williams noticed Ford and another correctional officer standing directly behind him. Ford told Williams that he wanted to talk with him. Williams asked if the conversation could wait as his recreational period was limited and Ford could speak to him at any time.

On Williams's version of events, ¹ Ford questioned his attitude, told him that his recreational period had ended, grabbed his arm, and began to lead him back to his cell. Williams jerked his arm away and an altercation erupted. Ford punched Williams in the face at least three times. Other correctional officers, including Drake, entered the fray. While Williams lay prostrate, the officers cuffed his hands and shackled his legs. Drake then knelt down, placed his hands around Williams's neck, squeezed, and asked: "Is this what you want? Have you had enough?" Drake's chokehold lasted no more than twenty seconds. Several officers then escorted Williams to new accommodations in MCI-Warren's high security section.

A disciplinary board (the Board), an internal body composed entirely of correctional officers, charged Williams administratively with inflicting bodily harm on Ford. Three days after the melee, the Board held a hearing, found Williams guilty, placed him in disciplinary segregation, and reduced his accumulated "good time" credits.

Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994), Williams subsequently filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. In it, he alleged that his constitutional rights had been flouted in a variety of ways. The parties agreed to proceed before a magistrate judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994); Fed R. Civ. P. 73(b), who eventually narrowed the case to Williams's excessive force claim against Drake and Ford. A jury trial yielded identical verdicts against both correctional officers: $1 in actual damages and $15,000 in punitive damages. Following their unsuccessful pursuit of post-trial relief before the magistrate, Drake and Ford jointly prosecuted this appeal.

II. ANALYSIS

We subdivide the appellants' challenge to the jury verdict into moieties involving, respectively, the disputed evidentiary rulings and the retention of the suspect juror.

A. The Evidentiary Rulings.

The appellants assign error to three separate rulings excluding evidence. We test each ruling for abuse of discretion, see Blinzler v. Marriott Int'l., Inc., 81 F.3d 1148, 1158 (1st Cir.1996); Veranda Beach Club Ltd. Partnership v. Western Surety Co., 936 F.2d 1364, 1373 (1st Cir.1991), and then consider the appellants' cumulative-error plaint.

1. The Guilty Plea. Prior to trial, Williams filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of a so-called guilty plea. The court granted the motion provisionally, subject to reexamination of the question at trial. See, e.g., United States v. Holmquist, 36 F.3d 154, 163-66 (1st Cir.1994) (describing this salutary practice). During defense counsel's cross-examination of Williams, she inquired about the plea, thus sparking a bench conference. We recount the relevant facts, consistent with the representations made to the court at that time.

When the Board charged Williams with inflicting bodily harm on Ford during the dayroom scuffle, Williams initially maintained his innocence. The Board found otherwise. Williams appealed to the warden, who granted a new hearing. A correctional officer delivered notification of this action to Williams at 6:45 a.m. on June 21, 1994. Williams claims to have been groggy due to the early hour and unaware that the notification concerned a new hearing. Convinced that further attempts to exonerate himself before decisionmakers whom he considered biased would be futile, he crossed out his previous "not guilty" plea and entered the word "guilty" on the form. As a result, no new hearing transpired.

Upon considering these facts, and hearing both lawyers at length, the magistrate reaffirmed his earlier ruling, sustained the plaintiff's objection to the pending question, and reminded counsel that such questions were prohibited. Significantly, the court did not preclude testimony concerning the disciplinary proceedings in gross, but stated repeatedly that the defense could ask Williams about the nature of the hearing and about any statements that he made before the Board.

At the end of the plaintiff's case in chief, defense counsel made an adequate offer of proof as to what would have been asked and answered with regard to this guilty plea had she been given the opportunity to inquire. In rejecting this tender, the magistrate elaborated on his rationale for excluding the evidence. He reasoned that admitting the evidence would necessitate a trial within a trial, focusing too bright a spotlight on Williams's motivation for changing his plea. In the court's view, this detour would likely confuse the jurors and divert their attention from the issues committed to their discernment.

Fed R. Evid. 403 controls this point. ² Trial courts have significant leeway in determining whether to admit or exclude evidence under the aegis of Rule 403. See Daigle v. Maine Med. Ctr., Inc., 14 F.3d 684, 690 (1st Cir.1994). This latitudinarian approach dictates that "only rarely--and in extraordinary circumstances--will we, from the vista of a cold appellate record, reverse a district court's on-the-spot judgment concerning the relative weighing of probative value and unfair effect." Freeman v. Package Mach. Co., 865 F.2d 1331, 1340 (1st Cir.1988). Viewed against this welcoming backdrop, the court's exclusion of the guilty plea evidence passes muster.

The appellants harp on the demonstrable relevance of the guilty plea evidence. But this is only part of the picture. Rule 403 allows the exclusion of evidence which, though relevant, carries unwanted baggage, such as unfair prejudice or potential juror confusion. See United States v. Fulmer, 108 F.3d 1486, 1498 (1st Cir.1997); United States v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230, 255-56 (1st Cir.1990). Even an admission by a party opponent is subject to exclusion under Rule 403 if its potential for unfair prejudice overwhelms its probative worth. See 5 Jack B. Weinstein et al., Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 801.20, at 801-44 (2d ed.1998). The rule thus constitutes a tool that a trial judge can use to keep a jury's attention riveted on the dispositive issues.

In this instance, the magistrate had adequate reason to wield the tool. The probative value of the guilty plea evidence was limited; after all, the jury heard testimony anent the proceedings before the Board, and the circumstances surrounding the plea made Williams's explanation of how it came about plausible. Then, too, the potential for muddling the issues was real: the procedural and substantive differences between a prison disciplinary board hearing and a jury trial easily could have led to confusion. Moreover, delving into Williams's motivation for changing his plea could well have created an unwarranted sideshow, drawing attention from the main event. Equally as important, the proffered evidence contained the seeds of unfair prejudice. The jury might have been tempted to find against Williams solely on the basis that he admitted...