# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 18 06

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Hen ry M. Dav is

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Mi ch ael W hi te , in hi s i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty; Cit y of F erg us on , Mis so ur i; Jo hn Bea ird ; Ki m

Tih en

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

11 , 20 17 Fil ed : J un e 9 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , LOKE N, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

The Hon or ab le W il li am Ja y Ri le y st ep pe d do wn as Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d 1 St at es Co ur t of App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it at th e cl os e of bu si ne ss on Mar ch 10
, 20 17 . He has be en su ccee de d b y th e Hon or ab le Lave ns ki R. Sm it h.Hen ry M. Dav is su ed th e Ci ty of Ferg us on an d t hr ee p ol ic e o ffi cers , all eg in g th ey be at hi m whi le he was ha nd cu ffed

. Se e Dav is v. Whi te , 79 4 F.3 d 10 08 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 5 ). His cl ai m s were tri ed to a jury aft er th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s Ba t s o n 2
ch al le ng e to th e of

fic ers ’ pe rem

pt or y st rik e of th e on ly rem ai ni ng Afri can -Am eri can

ve ni rep ers on , refu se d t o g iv e an ad ve rs e in fere nc e jury ins tru ct io n fo r sp ol ia ti on of

ev id en c e, ad m it te d ho sp it al reco rd s fro m th e ni gh t of th e in ci de nt , an d ex cl ud ed

em ai ls se nt by an of

fic er no t su ed

. The jury fo un d fo r th e of fic ers

. Dav is ap pe al s th e
pr et ria l ru li ng s. Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co ur t af fir m s.

I.

Bet ween 3: 00 an d 4: 00 am on Sep te m be r 20
, 2 0 0 9
, D av is was arre st ed fo r dr iv in g whi le in to xi cat ed an d ta ke n to th e Ferg us on jail

. An al te rcat io n oc cu rred as he was b ei ng tak en to a cel l. Ad di ti on al off ic ers arri ve d a s b ack up

.

Dav is cl ai m ed Offi cer Mi ch ael W hi te pu sh ed hi m in to th e cel l a nd sl am m ed hi m ag ai ns t th e ba ck wall

. Afte r co m pl y in g wit h in st ru ct io ns to li e do wn an d pu t hi s ha nd s b eh in d h is ba ck , he was ha nd cu ffed an d b eat en

.

Acco rd in g to th e o ffi cers , Dav is was ag gr es si ve an d res is te d. W hi te tri ed to

co nt ro l th e si tu at io n, us in g su rp ris e, by pu sh in g Dav is in to th e cel l. Dav is gr ab be d
W hi te , pu nc he d hi m in t h e f ace, br ok e hi s no se , th en he ld on as W hi te pu sh ed hi m
ag ai ns t th e ba ck wall of th e cel l, y el li ng at Dav is to le t go an d us in g de fen si ve st rik es

. Dav is an d W hi te fel l to th e gr ou nd
, al on g wi t h O f f i c e r J oh n J. Bea ird
, on to p of Offi cer Kim R. Tih en

. Tih en hi t Dav is on th e ba ck of hi s he ad wit h h e r h a n d c u f f s fro m th e b ot to m

of t he pi le . The o ffi cers ev en tu al ly pla ced Davi s i n h an dc uf fs

.

The Hon or ab le Nan et te A. Bak er, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 2 East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i, t o wh om th e cas e was refe rred for fin al di sp os it io n b y
co ns en t o f th e p art ie s p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 63 6( c)(3 ).

-2

-D a v i s su ffer ed a co nc us si on an d sc al p la cera ti on

. W he n th e EMTs arri v e d
,

Dav is was un co op erat iv e an d be ll ig eren t to ward th em , so th ey co ul d no t th or ou gh ly

as se ss hi m

. Dav is was ta ke n to a ho sp it al fo r tre at m en t. He refu se d to be tre at ed un ti l ho sp it al st aff to ok ph ot os of hi s in juri es

. Acco rd in g to Bea ird
, Dav is co nt in ue d to be be l l ig eren t to ward th e ho sp it al st aff, “ cu ss in g an d sc ream in g” at th em an d refu si ng
tre at m en t. He ret ur ne d t o t he Ferg us on jail wit ho ut be in g t reat ed

.

The cel ls at th e jail are un de r vi de o su rv ei ll an ce. In Sep te m be r 20 09 th e syste m us ed vi de o ta pe s to reco rd each 24 -h ou r pe rio d st art in g at 7: 00 am

. The ta pe s

were m ark ed wit h th e da y th e reco rd in g be ga n. Bec au se th e in ci de nt oc cu rred be fo re 7: 00 am , it was on th e ta pe m ark ed “ 9/ 19 /0 9” rat he r th an th e on e m ark ed “ 9/ 20 /0 9.”
W he n th e of

fic er in ch arg e of th e vi de o syste m , Serg ean t W il li am J. Mu dd
, was to ld

to pr es erv e th e re c or di ng of th e in ci de nt , he pr es erv ed on ly th e ta pe m ark ed

“ 9/ 20 /0 9
, ” so th e ta pe co nt ai ni ng vi de o of th e in ci de nt was no t pr es erv ed an d m os t li ke ly was reco rd ed ov er. Mu dd te st ifi ed it di d no t oc cu r t o h im to pr es erv e th e Sep te m be r 19 ta pe in or de r to ge t th e vi de o fro m th e earl y m or ni ng of Sep te m be r 20

.

Dur in g jury se le ct io n, th e of fic ers us ed a p e r e mpto ry st rik e on th e on ly

rem ai ni ng Afric an -Am eri can ve ni rep ers on . Davi s m ad e a Bat so n ch al le ng e, whi ch th e d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d.

At tri al
, th e co ur t ad m it t e d ho sp it al reco rd s ov er Dav is ’s ob jecti on s. The di st ric t co ur t al so ex cl ud ed raci st em ai ls se nt an d rece iv ed by Mu dd
, whi ch Dav is of fere d a s p ro of

of M ud d’s b ia s ag ai ns t Afri can -Am eri can s.

Dav is m ov ed to sa nc ti on th e of fic ers fo r sp ol ia ti on of ev id en ce, req ue st in g an ad ve rs e in fere nc e in st ru ct io n ba se d on th e fai lu re to pr es erv e th e co rrec t ta pe s. The di st ric t co ur t d en ie d t he req ue st

.

-3

-The jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t for th e of fic ers . Davi s app eal s th e di st ric t cou rt’s

ru li ng on hi s Bat

so n ch al le ng e, th e ad m is si on of t he ho sp it al reco rd s, t he ex cl us io n of Mu dd ’s em ai ls , and th e d en ia l o f an ad ve rs e in fere nc e in st ru ct io n.

II.

Th i s c o ur t rev ie ws a Bat

so n ch al le ng e ru li ng fo r cl ear erro r, de ferr in g to t h e tri al co ur t’s ru li ng “ in th e ab se nc e of ex cep ti on al ci rcu m st an ces .” Ka hl e v. Leo na rd
, 56 3 F.3d 73 6, 73 9 (8t h Cir. 20 09 ), qu ot in g Snyd er v. Loui si an a , 55 2 U.S. 47 2, 47 7 (2 00 8) . A Bat

so n ch al le ng e is ev al ua te d i n t hr ee s te ps :

Fi rs t, th e [ch al le ng er] m

u s t mak e a pr im a faci e cas e th at th e [ ] st rik e
was m ot iv at ed by race ; se co nd
, th e [s tri ki ng pa rty] m us t of fer a
race -n eu tra l reas on fo r th e st rik e; an d th ird , t ak in g in to acco un t al l th e
ev id en ce, th e tri al co ur t m us t fin d whe th er or no t th e [s tri ki ng pa rty] was

m ot iv at ed by pur

po se fu l d is cri m in at io n.

Id

. “ [T]he ul ti m at e bu rd en of pe rs ua si on

. . . res ts wit h” th e ch al le ng er. Se e Ri ce v. Co ll in s , 54 6 U.S. 3 33 , 33 8 (2 00 6) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

The th ird st ep “ in vo lv es an ev al ua ti on of th e [s tri ki ng pa rty] ’s cred ib il it y , an d th e be st ev id en ce of di sc riminat or y in te nt of te n wil l be th e de m ean or of th e at to rn ey who ex erci se s th e ch al le ng e.” Snyd er , 55 2 U.S. at 47 7 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d al te rat io ns om it te d)

. The tri al co ur t pl ay s a pi vo ta l ro le in de te rm in in g th e cred ib il it y

an d de m ean or of th e st rik in g pa rty, whi ch are “ pe cu l i a r l y wit hi n a tri al jud ge ’s

pr ov in ce.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Dav is ch al le ng ed th e of

fic ers ’ st rik e of th e on ly rem ai ni ng Afri can -Am eri can

ve ni rep ers on

. He m ad e a pr im a faci e sh owi ng th at th is st rik e was raci al ly m ot iv at ed be cau se he is Afri can -Am eri can an d al l of th e of f i c e r s are Cau cas ia n. The of fic ers of fere d a race -n eu tra l rat io na le th at th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d cred ib le : th e ve ni rep ers on

-4

-wor ke d a s a s ecu rit y off ic er i n a nu rs in g ho m e an d th e of fic ers ’ at to rn ey

st at ed th at he was co nc ern ed “ sh e wou ld co nf us e or co m

pa re he r us e of f

o r c e w i th th e us e of fo rce th at ’s ap pr op ria te in th is cas e.” Att em pt in g to ov erco m e th is ex pl an at io n, Dav is

arg ue s t ha t th e of

fic ers ’ at to rn ey qu es ti on ed th e Afri can -Am eri can ve ni rep ers on di ffer en tl y fro m ot he r ve ni rep ers on s wit h la w en fo rcem en t or se cu rit y ex pe rie nc e an d th at o f fic ers ge ne ral ly wan t juro rs wit h la w en fo rcem en t ex pe rie nc e—b ot h de m on st rat in g t he st at ed race -n eu tra l re as on was p ret ex tu al

.

The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th e race -n eu tra l ex pl an at io n cr e d i b l e

. Thi s de te rm in at io n is “ pe cu li arl y wit hi n a tri al jud ge ’s pr ov in ce.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d) . The d is tri ct co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in fin di ng th at Dav is fai le d t o

su st ai n h is bu rd en of p ers ua si on

.

III.

The ad m is si on or ex cl us io n of ev id en ce is rev ie wed f o r ab us e of di sc ret io n;

ev id en ti ary ru li ng s are rev ers ed on ly fo r “ a cl ear an d pr ejud ic ia l ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Quig le y v. Wi nt er , 59 8 F .3d 93 8, 9 46 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

A.

Dav is arg ue s th at th e ho sp it al reco rd s were im pr op erl y ad m it te d be cau se th ey

are im pr op er ch arac te r ev id en ce an d im pe rm is si bl e he ars ay

. He cl ai m s th at ev id en ce

co nt ai ni ng st at em en ts by ho sp it al st aff th at Dav is was be ll ig eren t an d no nc om pl ia nt

was im pr op er ch arac te r ev id en ce— su bm it te d to sh ow th at be cau se he act ed th at way
at th e ho sp i t al
, he act ed si m il arl y whe n pu sh ed in to th e cel l. He al so arg ue s th e
sta te m en ts are im

pe rm is si bl e do ub le he ars ay be cau se th ey are reco rd s of ho sp it al staf f

reco un ti ng st at em en ts he m ad e.

-5

-Si m il ar ev id en ce— th at Dav is was be ll ig eren t an d di d n o t co op erat e wit h

med i cal tre at m en t— was ad m it te d at tri al th ro ug h Bea ird ’s te st im on y an d EMT

reco rd s. Alt ho ug h Dav is st at es t h at “ [t]he im pr op er m at eri al

. . . was ex tre m el y
pr ejud ic ia l to [Dav is ] an d affe ct ed th e jury’ s verd ic t,” he offe rs no ex pl an at io n why th is pa rti cu la r a c co un t of hi s be ha vi or was pr ejud ic ia l in li gh t of th e ot he r si m il ar,

cu m ul at iv e, ev id en ce.

W he re ev id en ce do es no t ha ve a su bs ta nt ia l i nf lu en ce o n t he ve rd ic t be cau se it is cu m ul at iv e, th ere is no pr ejud ic e. Se e McDo wel l v. Bl an ke ns hi p , 75 9 F.3 d 84 7, 85 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). “ Im

pr op er ad m is si on of ev id en ce whi ch is cu m ul at iv e of m at te rs sh own by ad m is si bl e ev id en ce is ha rm le ss erro r.” Wi ls on v. Ci ty of Des Mo in es , 44 2
F.3 d 63 7, 64 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). “ [I]n th e co nt ex t of th e who le tri al
, th e ad m is si on of ” th e ho sp it al reco rd s “ di d no t ha ve a su bs ta nt i a l in flu en ce on th e ve rd ic t,” an d an y

erro r by th e di st ric t co ur t in ad m it ti ng th em was ha rm le ss

. Se e McDo wel l
, 75 9 F.3 d

at 85 3 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

B.

Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 3 al lo ws a di st ric t co ur t to ex cl ud e ev id en ce “ if it s
pr ob at iv e va lu e is s u b s t an ti al ly ou twei gh ed by a da ng er of on e or m or e of th e fo ll owi ng : un fai r pr ejud ic e, co nf us in g th e is su es , m is le ad in g th e jury, un du e de la y ,
was ti ng ti m e, or ne ed le ss ly pr es en ti ng cu m ul a t i ve ev id en ce.” Thi s co ur t “ gi ve [s ]
gr eat de fere nc e to th e di st ric t co ur t’s Ru le 40 3 de te rm in at io ns ” an d “ wil l no t

s u b s t i t ut e it s jud gm en t fo r th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t” ab se nt an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Unit

ed Sta te s v. B at

tl e , 77 4 F .3d 50 4, 5 12 -1 4 (8 th Cir . 20 14 ).

Dav is arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ex cl ud in g ev id en ce of raci st em ai ls se nt

an d rece iv ed by Mu dd

. The di st ric t co ur t ad dr es se d th e rel ev an ce an d ris k of

pr ejud ic e po se d by ad m it ti ng th e em ai ls

. It qu es ti on ed th ei r rel ev an ce be cau se Mu dd

was no t pr es en t fo r th e al le ge d us e of ex ces si ve fo rce— hi s on ly in vo lv em en t was th e

-6

-f

a i lu re to pr es erv e th e vi de o reco rd in g of th e al te rcat io n aft er th e fact

. Tho u g h
Mu dd ’s bi as m ig ht be rel ev an t to th e cred ib il it y of hi s ex cu se fo r no t pr es erv in g th e

co rrec t vi de o, th e d i s t r i c t co ur t no te d th at th e ex ces si ve fo rce, no t th e ret en ti on of

po te nt ia l ev id en ce, was th e cen tra l tri al is su e. The di st ric t co ur t al so de te rm in ed th at th e ev id en ce wou ld be un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l, an d th at ev en a li m it in g in st ru ct io n wou ld be in effe ct iv e. Giv en th e m in im al pr ob at iv e va lu e of Mu dd ’s bi as an d th e po te nt ia l

un fai r pr ej u d i c e t o th e de fen da nt of fic ers —wh o were no t as so ci at ed wit h th e

em ai ls —t he di st ric t co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n e xc lu di ng th e em ai ls

.

IV.

A di st ric t co ur t’s “ de ci si on on whe th er to im po se sa nc ti on s,” an d it s “ de ci si on
to gi ve a pa rti cu la r in st ru ct io n” are rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Acc io na Wi nd po wer N. Am ., LLC v. Ci ty of W. Br an ch, Io wa , 84 7 F.3 d 96 3, 96 9 (8 t h Ci r. 20 17 ); Bur ri

s v. Gul f Und er wr it er s I ns . Co. , 78 7 F .3d 87 5, 8 79 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5)

.

An ad ve rs e in fere nc e in st ru ct io n fo r sp ol ia ti on of ev id en ce req ui res “ a fin di ng of in te nt io na l de st ru ct io n in di cat in g a de si re to su pp res s th e tru th .” Bur ri s , 78 7 F.3 d

at 87 9. Thi s is a hi gh ba r be cau se “ [a]n ad ve rs e in fere nc e in st ru ct io n i s a po werfu l

to ol ”; it “ br an ds on e pa rty as a ba d act or ” an d “ ne ces sa ril y op en s th e do or to a cert ai n de gr ee of sp ecu la ti on by th e jury, whi ch is ad m on is he d th at it m ay in fer th e pr es en ce of da m ag in g in fo rm at io n.” Mo rr is v. Unio n Pac

. R.R.
, 37 3 F.3 d 89 6, 90 0 (8t h Cir.
20 04 ). Th e di st ric t co ur t “ ha s su bs ta nt ia l le eway to de te rm in e in te nt th ro ug h

co ns id erat io n of ci rcu m st an ti al ev ide nc e, w itn es s cr ed ibi lity
, m ot iv es of th e wit ne ss es in a pa rti cu la r cas e, an d o th er fa ct or s.” Id

. at 9 01

.

Dav is arg ue s:

Des pi te rece iv in g a writ te n req ue st fro m Serg ean t Bal la rd an d a ve rb al req ue st fro m Off

i c e r Bea ird to pr es erv e th e Sep te m be r 20 , 2 00 9 vi de o

-7

-fro m th e jail su rv ei ll a n c e c a meras, it is in co nc ei va bl e th at Serg ean t

Mu dd
, who was th e Co m m un ic at io ns Su pe rv is or , wou ld on ly pr es erv e th e vi de o ta pe th at st art ed at 7: 00 a.m

. on Sep te m be r 20
, 20 09

. Serg ean t Mu dd co m

pl et el y fai le d to pr es erv e 7 of th e 24 ho ur s of Sep te m be r 20
, 20 09 . This can be no m is ta ke

.

The di st ric t co ur t he ard te st im on y fro m Mu dd ab ou t hi s fai lu re to pr es erv e th e co rrec t
ta pe

. It fo u n d c r e d i b le hi s te st im on y th at “ [i]t ne ve r cro ss ed m y m in d to sa ve th e earl ie r ta pe .” The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e fai lu re to pr es erv e th e pr op er ta pe

was a ne gl ig en t, no t m al ic io us , erro r. The di st ric t co ur t’s refu sa l to sa nc ti on th e of fic ers wit h a n a dv ers e in fere nc e in st ru ct io n was no t an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-