Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-00878/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-00878-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Araya Wolde-Giorgis,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Larry K. Christiansen, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 02-0878-PHX-DKD

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial which "requests this court

to reconsider, amend, alter the judgment and set aside the judgment and allow plaintiff to have

a new trial in order to remedy the miscarriage of justice." Plaintiff's motion also includes a

renewed request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel

advances no new grounds and there is no demonstration that any circumstances have changed

since the Court last denied this request and thus the renewed request will be denied.

There are four grounds for which a new trial may be granted pursuant to Rule 59 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A motion may be granted if it is (1) necessary to correct

manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; (2) the moving party presents

newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) the motion is necessary to prevent

manifest injustice; or (4) there is an intervening change in controlling law. Turner v. Bullington

Northern Sante Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).

Case 2:02-cv-00878-DKD Document 117 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

Dr. Wolde-Giorgis' motion is supported by his affidavit which sets forth in enumerated

paragraphs several grounds for a new trial. The Court will address the contention of each

paragraph in turn.

¶4 Exclusion of Witnesses

Plaintiff asserts that "the other major miscarriage of justice is that this court unjustly

excluded all of plaintiff's witnesses without any justification since plaintiff did not receive the

29 page 'Litigation Report Summary' since defendants did not attach [it] to defendants' answer

to plaintiff's interrogatories" (emphasis in original). Dr. Wolde-Giorgis sought to identify for

the first time on the eve of trial a number of witnesses he intended to call at trial

notwithstanding the Court's prior plain instruction to him that he would need to timely identify

all witnesses. Dr. Wolde-Giorgis sought to lay the blame for late disclosure on Defendants'

alleged failure to provide through discovery information to Plaintiff which would have allowed

him to timely disclose his witnesses. This issue was the subject of an extensive hearing before

trial and it was addressed via a ruling on the record as well as in the Court's Minute Entry. As

previously explained to Dr. Wolde-Giorgis, the responsibility for the failure to timely identify

his witnesses lay more appropriately at his feet than on Defendants. Even assuming for the sake

of this argument that Plaintiff never received the attachment to Defendants' response to

Plaintiff's interrogatories, this omission if it occurred was obvious and Plaintiff should have

exercised reasonable diligence to obtain the omitted material. Plaintiff has advanced no new

argument or law that was not presented and previously considered by the Court. There are no

grounds for a new trial on this issue. 

¶5 Exclusion of Plaintiff's Exhibits

Plaintiff next argues that the Court's exclusion of Plaintiff's exhibits violated his due

process and equal protection rights and that he is due a new trial because the Court excluded the

following exhibits: Defendants' answers to Plaintiff's interrogatories, Plaintiff's letters to

Defendants, Plaintiffs' Complaint, Plaintiff's medical documents, Plaintiff's list of economics

faculty members, and Plaintiff's own sworn affidavits. 

Case 2:02-cv-00878-DKD Document 117 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

With respect to Plaintiff's motion to admit Defendants' responses to his interrogatories,

the Court sustained Defendants' objection pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403 upon the

Court's balancing of the risk of confusion and unnecessary delay against the probative value of

the "wholesale" introduction of these documents. The Court's evidentiary ruling on these

documents was without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking to move their admission upon a proper

foundation, but Plaintiff never made any subsequent attempt. 

It should be noted that the Court was mindful that Dr. Wolde-Giorgis was appearing pro

se and that it did on numerous occasions provide Plaintiff with remedial information including

basic presentations on the rules of evidence and civil procedure. The Court also advised

Plaintiff well before trial that he would be wise to consult Professor Imwinkelried's treatise

"Evidentiary Foundations". The Court took these steps in part because it believed that an

individual with Plaintiff's record of academic achievement and advanced academic degree

would be able to educate himself if given the tools. Sadly, it is this Court's conclusion that Dr.

Wolde-Giorgis either does not listen well or he only hears what he wants to hear because the

pretrial and trial record of this case is chock-full of incidents of Dr. Wolde-Giorgis' failure to

follow the Rules of Evidence, the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's explicit Orders. 

Defendants objected to the admission of Dr. Wolde-Giorgis' efforts to admit his letters

to others on hearsay grounds and Plaintiff articulated no exception to the hearsay bar. Thus,

these documents were properly excluded.

Plaintiff sought to admit his Complaint and Amended Complaint and these documents

were excluded on the basis of a Federal Rule of Evidence 403 analysis because of the Court's

fear that they contained superfluous and confusing information (including the inclusion of

claims and parties which had been dismissed). Thus the risk of prejudice outweighed their

probative value.

The Court excluded Plaintiff's medical documents and records pursuant to Defendants'

foundation objection. Plaintiff provided no foundation for these documents notwithstanding his

Case 2:02-cv-00878-DKD Document 117 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 4 -

apparent understanding of the concept of evidentiary foundations which was demonstrated by

his submission of authenticated educational records.

With respect to Plaintiff's motion to admit as evidence a list he apparently created to

show that no black full-time economics teacher was ever hired in thirty years, the Court

sustained Defendants' foundation objection because no foundation for this document was

offered. The Court did not restrict Plaintiff's opportunity to develop this evidence through the

testimony of any witness at trial.

Dr. Wolde-Giorgis' Affidavits were excluded pursuant to a hearsay objection and no

exception to the hearsay rule was proffered. The Court explained to Plaintiff during trial that

these affidavits were out-of-court statements to which the rule against hearsay applied. No

exception pursuant to Rule 801(d)(1) was presented.

¶6 Defendants' Exhibits

Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the interview score sheets

which were admitted as business records during the presentation of Defendants' case contain

the score sheets of two individuals Plaintiff alleges he did not know about prior to trial. He

alleges "willful and malicious deception by defendants." The record does not support Plaintiff's

accusation. Any failure to know about these individuals prior to trial is due to Plaintiff's lack

of due and reasonable diligence and not any deception on the part of Defendants. The Court has

repeatedly addressed this issue with Plaintiff and no new arguments or facts have been

presented.

¶7 Jury's Request for a List of Exhibits

Plaintiff contends that the Court's response to the jury's question during deliberations

entitles him to a new trial. The jury asked for "a form with each exhibit listed by # &

description" to which the Court responded, "We are unable to provide you with the form you

request." The only list of exhibits available to the Court at the time of the jury's request was

Plaintiff's and Defendants' lists of exhibits. Such lists would have informed the jury about

exhibits not admitted into evidence which would have been contrary to the Rules of Evidence

Case 2:02-cv-00878-DKD Document 117 Filed 03/31/06 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 5 -

and the evidentiary rulings excluding those exhibits. Moreover, the Court did not want to delay

the jurors' deliberations while the requested list was prepared. The jury had before them the

exhibits admitted into evidence and they were not so voluminous or unmanageable such that

failure to provide the requested list constituted manifest error so as to warrant a new trial.

¶8 Plaintiff's Contention that All Defense Witnesses Lied

Plaintiff next argues that "almost all of the witnesses (i.e. defense witnesses) lied under

oath." Each of the alleged incidents of lying which Plaintiff cites in his motion was played out

before the jury and thus the verdict reflects the jury's consideration of the witnesses' testimony

and credibility. Dr. Wolde-Giorgis had a full opportunity to confront and cross-examine all

witnesses. The record does not support setting aside the jury's verdicts on this issue.

¶9 Incompetent Juror(s) and Exclusion of Juror

Dr. Wolde-Giorgis contends that "some of the jurors were incompetent." He complains

about a particular juror's ability to read and write English. The Court conducted an on-therecord inquiry of this juror's capacity to serve as a juror and it was well satisfied that this juror

was competent to serve. This juror said he had a problem with English because he never went

to school but upon the Court's inquiry he informed the Court that he had spoken English for

more than 30 years and that he had "pretty much" been able to understand the proceedings

which had transpired thus far. The Court's interaction with this juror gave the Court the clear

impression that the juror was humbly admitting his lack of formal schooling but that he was

fully able to comprehend English. Moreover, Dr. Wolde-Giorgis did not inquire further with

this juror on this point when he was given the opportunity to do so. Dr. Wolde-Giorgis also

contends that the jury instructions, which he approved, were "complex and confusing and even

misleading" and that "most of the other members or at least some of them do not and did not

understand the jury instructions." Plaintiff offers no explanation or example on this point and

the record contains no hint that the jury was confused or misled.

Finally, Dr. Wolde-Giorgis asks for a new trial because Defendants exercised a

peremptory challenge to exclude a potential juror with a masters degree in economics who was

Case 2:02-cv-00878-DKD Document 117 Filed 03/31/06 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 6 -

presently employed as a bank teller. Plaintiff contends that she was struck because of her race.

Plaintiff raised this issue at trial and the Court conducted a Batson examination of this strike and

was satisfied, for the reasons articulated on the record, that Defendants could legitimately

choose to exercise a peremptory strike against this juror.

¶10 Contention that Defense Counsel Lied in Closing Argument

Dr. Wolde-Giorgis states that "[t]he attorney for the defendants not only lied when she

indicated that most of the plaintiff's 25 years teaching experience is outside of the United States

when in fact 14 years out of those 25 years were in the United States. Ms. Blumenreich was not

limited to misleading the jury in that regard, she was telling the jury that plaintiff is a foreigner

who does not belong here!" The location of Dr. Wolde-Giorgis' training and experience was

in evidence and the Court did not perceive that counsel for Defendants was seeking to inflame

unfair biases. Defense counsel's closing argument did not deprive Plaintiff of a fair trial as he

alleges.

¶11 Interrogatory Responses Prepared by the Attorney for Maricopa County Community

Colleges

Dr. Wolde-Giorgis contends that he should be granted a new trial because the attorney

for the Maricopa County Community Colleges who prepared certain answers to interrogatories

did "'not know' where she got the information from." Plaintiff does not explain how this entitles

him to a new trial. In any event, the answers to interrogatories themselves were never admitted

into evidence and thus there is no basis for according a new trial on this basis.

Conclusion

The Court has addressed each of Plaintiff's arguments for a new trial and finds that none

are of merit. Plaintiff had his "day in court" before a properly composed jury of our community.

Dr. Wolde-Giorgis took the stand and had the full opportunity to present his case. To the extent

that he complains that his other evidence was limited, that limitation was of his own making.

There was no error or injustice requiring a new trial. The Court will not squelch the unanimous

voice of this jury.

Case 2:02-cv-00878-DKD Document 117 Filed 03/31/06 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 7 -

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial [Doc. #107].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Ruling as MOOT

[Doc. #115]. 

DATED this 31st day of March, 2006.

Case 2:02-cv-00878-DKD Document 117 Filed 03/31/06 Page 7 of 7