Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Evidence Admissibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals Court Asked to Review Evidence Rulings in Jail-Search Civil Trial
Summary
Appellant challenged trial-court evidentiary decisions, arguing admission of a probation docket and exclusion of parts of an SIU report prejudiced his civil-rights jury trial alleging excessive force and improper search.
An Appeals Court panel heard an appeal challenging trial-court evidentiary rulings after a civil jury verdict involving an inmate’s claim of excessive force and an improper search at a county jail.
Richard Latimer, counsel for appellant Alexander Thayer, argued the trial judge abused discretion by admitting the district-court docket revoking Thayer’s probation and by excluding portions of a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) report that Latimer said contained defendants’ prior statements the defense used at trial. Latimer told the court the docket was used to impeach credibility and that defense counsel “set a trap” by not objecting sooner; he said his client was ambushed and denied the chance to cross-examine witnesses using the investigative report.
Michael Donovan, appearing for the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office, urged the panel not to disturb the jury verdict and said the record shows the plaintiff opened the door to evidence about his probation by eliciting sympathy and explaining missed probation appointments. Donovan said the judge permitted defendant-created reports and testimony but limited third‑party investigator opinions and that any error in excluding parts of the SIU report would be harmless in light of the full record.
Latimer argued that the exclusion of defendant statements from investigative reports and the admission of what he described as ambush impeachment evidence shifted the trial’s focus toward uncharged prior bad acts and undercut the jury’s consideration of objective evidence, including medical documentation. Donovan countered that the judge allowed relevant portions of defendant statements and that the appellant had opportunities to cross-examine and pursue inquiry on the SIU matters.
The panel questioned counsel about the procedures for refreshing recollection, the contours of hearsay exceptions governing investigative reports, and whether any exclusion was prejudicial given the entire trial record. The case was submitted.
