Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02615/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02615-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 

---

. f ' lLED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

U!itted States Court f A 

Tenth Circu7r ppeals 

FEB 2 8 1990 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

10,031.98 ACRES OF LAND, more or less, } 

situate in Las Animas County, Colorado, } 

Defendant, 

and 

SHARP RANCH, INC., et al., and 

UNKNOWN OWNERS, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

) 

) 

} 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88 - 2615 

(D.C. No. 83-A-1176) 

(D. Colo.} 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON,** Chief Judge. 

**The Honorable Ralph G. Thompson, Chief Judge, United States 

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by 

designation. 

Defendants appeal both the district court's judgment of 

$1,521,000 entered in favor of defendants after a jury trial and 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36. 3 . 

Appellate Case: 88-2615 Document: 01019964565 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 1 
the district court's order denying defendants' motion for a new 

trial. We affirm. 

On appeal, defendants first argue that the district court 

erred in refusing to permit Gordon Scranton to testify as an 

expert. The trial court has broad discretion in admitting expert 

testimony. Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 35 

(1962); Quinones v. Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co., 804 F.2d 1167, 

1171 (10th Cir. 1986). Exclusion of expert testimony is 

reversible only for an abuse 

Salem, 370 U.S. at 35; Quinones, 

Scranton was not permitted to 

permitted to testify fully as a 

of discretion or manifest error. 

804 F.2d at 1171. Although 

testify as 

lay person. 

an expert, he was 

Scranton was not 

precluded from giving his opinion on the crucial issues in the 

case. Thus, based on our review of the record, we conclude there 

was no manifest error in the district court's refusal to permit 

Scranton to testify as an expert. 

Next, defendants argue the district court erred in not 

allowing Clifton Sharp to give opinion testimony as to the 

carrying capacity of ranches used as examples of comparable sales. 

Sharp was permitted to testify on his direct examination as to the 

carrying capacity of other ranches. His testimony regarding 

carrying capacity was only limited during rebuttal, because it was 

evidence that should have been presented during defendants' 

case-in-chief. See Baum v. Great W. Cities, Inc., 703 F.2d 1197, 

1211 (10th Cir. 1983); Emerick v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp., 750 

F.2d 19, 22 (3d Cir. 1984). The district court did not err in 

refusing to allow the testimony. 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2615 Document: 01019964565 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 2 
Defendants also contend the district court erred in limiting 

cross-examination of Steve Willman, plaintiff's expert witness, 

regarding his determinations of carrying capacity. District 

courts have discretion to control the scope of cross-examination. 

United States v. 25.02 Acres of Land, 495 F.2d 1398, 1402 (10th 

Cir. 1974). The district court did not abuse its discretion here, 

because defendants had ample opportunity to cross-examine Willman 

on relevant matters. 

Defendants argue the district court erred in limiting defense 

counsel's closing argument. The district court has discretion to 

limit the scope of closing arguments. Ramsey v. Culpepper, 738 

F.2d 1092, 1100 (10th Cir. 1984); McDonald v. United Airlines, 

Inc., 365 F.2d 593, 595 (10th Cir. 1966). After reviewing the 

trial transcript, we conclude the district court did not abuse its 

discretion. 

Defendants' final argument on appeal is that the district 

court was biased and prejudiced and had prejudged their case, 

thereby denying them a fair trial. See 28 U.S.C. § 455. The 

record fails to support defendants' allegation of bias or 

prejudice. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2615 Document: 01019964565 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 3