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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 36 79

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Fern an do C. Vala de z

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

W at ki ns Mo to r Lin es , Inc .; Den ni s D. Watts

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

13 , 20 14 Fil ed : J ul y

11 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re GRUENDER, BRIGHT, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Fern an do Vala de z was in

jure d in a tra ffi c acci de nt whe n hi s va n was st ru ck by

a se m i-t ru ck dr iv en by D e n n i s W at ts an d own ed by W at ki ns Mo to r Lin es , In c. (Watk in s)

. Vala de z su ed W at ts an d Watk in s fo r hi s in juri es , in cl ud in g hi s pas t and
fu tu re m ed ic al ex pe ns es an d im pa ire d earn in g cap aci ty. The jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t

as si gn in g no fau lt to ei th er pa rty. Vala de z ap pe al s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s m ad e b y th edi st ric t co ur t, whi ch he cl ai m s affe ct ed th e jury’ s ve rd ic t. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r

28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, we re ve rs e an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

In 20 06 , F ern an do Vala de z was em pl oyed as a de li ve ry dr iv er. On Feb ru ary 2, 20 06
, Vala de z was tra ve li ng wit h Artu ro Co nt rera s- San ch ez to St

. Lou is
, Mi ss ou ri,

to pi ck up v e h i c le s pu rch as ed at an au to m ot iv e au ct io n ho us e an d tra ns po rt th e

ve hi cl es to El Pas o, Tex as

. The m en arri ve d in St . Lo ui s, pi ck ed up th e ve hi cl es at th e au c t i o n h o us e, an d pr ep ared to le av e. Vala de z was to dr iv e a 19 96 Pl y m ou th
Gran d Voyager an d to w a 20 01 Fo rd Esca pe on a to w do ll y

. Co nt rera s- San ch ez was
t o dr iv e se pa rat el y in a 20 01 Fo rd F1 50 pi ck -u p tru ck

. Vala de z an d Co nt r e r a s

San ch ez cl ai m to ha ve at ta ch ed a si m pl e to w li gh t ki t to th e Fo rd Esca pe , co ns is ti ng of two bu lb s to si gn al br ak in g an d tu rn in g. In or de r to at ta ch th e ki t, Vala de z ha d to

sp li ce th e wire s on th e ba ck of th e Pl y m ou th Gran d Voyager

. Afte r m ak in g su re th e li gh ts were wor ki ng pr io r to de pa rtu re, th e pa ir le ft f o r El Pas o wit h Vala de z fo ll owi ng Co nt rera s- San ch ez.

A t a ro un d 2 a.m . o n Feb ru ary 3 , 2 00 6, Vala de z an d Co nt rera s- San ch ez w e r e
ap pr oa ch in g th e ex it fo r Hig hwa y YY, w h e r e th ey ha d pr ev io us ly ag reed to st op

. W he n th e two be ga n to ex it
, th e Fo rd Esca pe th at Vala de z was to win g was hit fro m be hi nd by th e se m i-t ru ck dri ve n b y W at ts . Bot h t he Fo rd Esca pe an d t he Plym ou th
Gran d Voyager were pu sh ed of f th e ro ad in to th e di tc h. Va l a d e z an d
Co nt rera s- San ch ez cl ai m to ha ve pu t th ei r tu rn si gn al s on an d be gu n to sl ow do wn well in ad va nc e of th e ex it

. Vala de z as se rts he sl owe d do wn fro m 60 –6 5 m ph to 55

mp h at th e ti m e of th e acci de nt

. W at ts cl ai m s Vala de z was in st ead st op pe d on t h e hi gh way

. W at ts al so cl ai m s no t to ha ve se en an y to w li gh ts on t h e ba ck of th e

ve hi cl e. N o t o w l i gh ts or rem ai ns of to w li gh ts were fo un d by th e in ve st ig at in g of fic er. Val ad ez s ug ge st s t he to w li gh ts were d es tro y ed in th e cra sh

.

-2

-Afte r th e acci de nt , Vala de z was t a k e n b y am bu la nc e to an em erg en cy ro om whe re he rece iv ed tre at m en t fo r in juri es to hi s lo wer ba ck

. Si nc e th e acci de nt , Vala de z ha s co nt in ue d to su ffer fro m ch ro ni c pa in to hi s lo wer ba ck
, an d do ct or s ha ve

reco m m en de d t ha t Val ad ez hav e su rg ery. Valad ez i s n o l on ge r ab le to do th e sa m e type o f wor k a nd ha s s in ce b een for ced to tak e lo wer p ay in g jo bs

.

Vala de z br ou gh t a pe rs on al in jury su it ag ai ns t W at ts an d W at ki ns i n th e East ern Dis tr ic t of Mi ss ou ri ba se d on di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on

. Pri or to tri al
, Vala de z br ou gh t a m ot io n in li m in e to ex cl ud e p or ti on s o f th e acc id en t re po rt t ha t pres en te d
th e op in io ns an d co nc lu si on s of th e in ve st ig at in g of fic er. The di st ric t co ur t ex cl ud ed

t h e en ti re acci de nt rep or t ov er W at ts ’ an d W at ki ns ’ ob jecti on s, ci ti ng pr im ari ly t h e

un av ai la bi li ty of th e in ve st ig at in g of fic er who au th or ed th e acci de nt rep or t

. Th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed th at th e pa rti es co ul d st ip ul at e to an y fact s co nt ai ne d in th e rep or t, bu t t ha t t he rep or t i ts el f was in ad m is si bl e.

Dur in g th e tri al
, W at ts te st ifi ed th at Vala de z’s v e h i c l e lo ok ed “ ab so lu te ly

st op pe d” on th e h i g hwa y an d th at he to ld th e in ve st ig at in g of fic er at th e sc en e th at Vala de z was st op pe d on th e hi gh way

. Seek in g to im pe ach W at ts ’ te st im on y , Vala de z
p r e s en te d th e te st im on y of Serg ean t W oo dy Hick s, th e of fic er who rev ie wed th e acci de nt rep or t, as to wha t in fo rm at io n th e in ve st ig at in g of fic er in cl ud ed in th e acci de nt rep or t. Mr. Cerv an te s, pl ai nt iff ’s co un se l, as k e d Serg ean t Hick s whe th er th ere were an y st at em en ts in th e acci de nt rep or t su gg es ti ng Vala de z was st op pe d on th e hi gh way

. Serg ean t Hick s te st ifi ed th at th ere was no m en ti on in th e acci de nt rep or t of W at ts te ll in g th e of

fic er at th e sc en e th at Vala de z’s ve hi cl e was st op pe d. The
rel ev an t t es ti m on y

is as f ol lo ws:

Mr. Ce rv an te s: And di d t he po li ce o ffi cer wri te a qu ot at io n do wn

. . .

whe n h e in te rv ie wed

. . . Mr. Watt s?

. . .

-3

-Serg ean t Hi ck s: H e w r o t e , “Dr i v e r o n e s t a t e d
, ‘ I w a s d r i v i n g

wes tb ou nd

. And al l of [a] s ud de n, a ve hi cl e wit ho ut ta il li gh t s w a s i n fro nt of m e—i n fro nt of m e, an d I

wen t— an d wen t un de r m y tru ck

. I th en pu sh ed hi m of f in a di tc h.’”

. . .

Mr. Ce rv an te s: And i s t he re an y m en ti on by Mr. W at ts in th e q uo te d

st at em en t th at he rep or te d to th e po li ce of fic er th at m

y cl ie nt ’s veh ic le was s to pp ed on th e h ig hwa y ?

Serg ean t Hi ck s: No, t he re i s n ot

.

. . .

Mr. Ce rv an te s: Is th ere a bo x on th e bo x [s i c ] t h a t c a n b e c he ck ed

whe n it ha s be e n r e p or te d whe n a ve hi cl e was im pr op erl y st op pe d o n t he hi gh way ?

Serg ean t Hi ck s: Yes

.

. . .

Mr. Cerv an te s:

. . . And if it ha s be en rep or te d to th e po li ce of fic er t ha t

so m eo ne cl ai m s th at a ve hi cl e ha s b e e n im pr op erl y st op pe d on th e hi gh w ay , he can ch eck th at bo x;

co rrec t?

Serg ean t Hi ck s: I f th e of fic er can pr ov e t h a t i t w a s s t o p p e d o n t h e hi gh way

.

Mr. Ce rv an te s: A n d i n t h i s cas e, th e po li ce of fic er di d no t ch eck for

m y c l ie nt th at he was im pr op erl y st op pe d on th e hi gh way ; co rrec t?

Serg ean t Hi ck s: Co rrec t. He d id no t ch eck th at

.

-4

-F o ll owi ng th is ex ch an ge , M r. Swif t, who was joi nt ly rep res en ti ng W at ts an d
W at ki ns , arg ue d to th e co ur t th a t S e r g e a n t Hick s’ res po ns e th at th e in ve st ig at in g of fic er wil l ch eck t h e “i mp r o pe rly st op pe d on th e hi gh way ” bo x “ if th e of fic er can
pr ov e th at [th e ve hi cl e ] w a s st op pe d” op en ed th e do or to as ki ng ab ou t th e in ve st ig at in g of

fic er’s op in io ns an d co nc lu si on s on cro ss -e xa m in at io n. Mr. Swif t

no te d th at th e bo xe s in th e acci de nt rep o r t th at Mr. Cerv an te s in qu ire d ab ou t were
p a r t of a se ct io n en ti tl ed “ Pro ba bl e Co nt rib ut in g Ci rcu m st an ces ,” whe re th e 1
in ve st ig at in g of

fic er can no te po ss ib le cau se s of th e acci de nt

. In th at se ct io n, m ul ti pl e

“ Pro ba bl e Co nt rib ut in g Ci rcu m st an ces ” are li st ed , e ach wit h a c h e c k b o x ne xt to it
th at co ul d b e ch eck ed or l eft bl an k. Mr . Swift dre w th e co ur t’s at te nt io n t o t he fact
th at ot he r bo xe s, on es no t m en t io ne d by Mr. Cerv an te s du rin g hi s ex am in at io n of Serg ean t Hick s, wer e ch eck ed

. Mr. Swif t su gg es te d th at Mr. Cerv an te s’ qu es ti on s to Serg ean t Hick s m ay ha ve le ft th e im pr op er im

pr es si on th at no ot he r b o x e s w ere ch eck ed an d/ or th ere was no th in g e ls e th e o ffi cer th ou gh t he cou ld pr ov e reg ard in g

a po ss ib le cau se fo r th e acci de nt

. Mr. Swif t arg ue d th at Mr. Cerv an te s ha d “ op en ed
th e do or ” to im

pr op er evi de nc e su ch th at Mr. Swift sh ou ld be al lo wed to “ cu re” th e

erro r by inq ui rin g a bo ut whet he r an y ot he r bo xe s wer e ch eck ed

.

Mr. Cerv a nt es ob

jecte d, arg ui ng he ha d no t op en ed th e do or to im pr op er

ev id en ce. Mr. Cerv an te s su gg es te d th e pu rp os e of hi s q ue st io ns was si m pl y to fin d

ou t whe th er th ere was a ch eck bo x fo r a ve hi cl e be in g “ im pr op erl y st op pe d on th e hi gh way ” an d whe th er th at bo x was ch eck ed . By eli ci ti ng th e fac t t ha t t he bo x h ad

no t be en ch eck ed
, Mr. Cerv an te s in te nd ed to im pe ach W at ts ; he was hi gh li gh ti ng th e
po ss ib le in co ns is te nc y be twee n: (1 ) W at ts ’ te st im on y th at he ha d to l d th e of fic er Vala de z was st op pe d; an d (2 ) th ere be in g no m en ti on in th e acci de nt rep or t of W at ts

The “ Pro ba b le Co nt rib ut in g Ci rcu m st an ces ” se ct io n of th e acci de nt rep or t 1 fo rm ap pe ars as on e la rg e “ bo x” an d con ta in s two id en ti cal co lu m ns of sm al l bo xe s th at can be ch eck ed
, on e co lu m n fo r each ve hi cl e in vo lv ed (V1 an d V2)
, id en ti fy in g

va rio us po ss ib le cau se s o f an acci de nt

.
-5

-m ak in g a st at em en t th at Vala de z was st op pe d. Mr. Cerv an te s als o po in te d ou t th at ,

du rin g hi s di rect ex am in at io n, he ne ve r m en ti on ed th e ti tl e of th e se ct io n, “ Pro ba bl e Co nt rib ut in g Ci rcu m st an ces .” The di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d th e ob jecti on , an d Mr.
Swif t was al lo wed to as k whe th er ot he r bo xe s in th is se ct io n were ch eck ed

. Mr. Swif t th en cro ss -ex am in ed Serg ean t Hi ck s as fol lo ws:

Mr. Swi ft: O ka y

. And y ou were as ke d ab ou t Bo x 1 8

. . . . A n d

t h a t b o x i s “ [ P ] r o b a b l e [ C ] o n t r i b u t i n g [C]ircu m st an ces ;” tru e?

Serg ean t Hi ck s: Yes

.

Mr. Swi ft: A n d i n t ha t bo x y ou are as k e d a b o u t “i mp r o p e r l y

st op pe d on th e ro ad way ” an d [th e in ve st ig at in g

o ffi cer], I th in k he sa id
, co ul d no t pr ov e th at

. S o h e di d n ot ch eck th at bo x, t ru e?

Serg ean t Hi ck s: Co rrec t.

Mr. Swi ft: B u t [ t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r ] d i d c h e c k s o me bo x— bo xe s wit h res pe ct to hi s of fic ia l co nc lu si on s th at he fel t h e co ul d p ro ve , tru e?

Serg ean t Hi ck s: Yes

.

. . .

Mr. Swi ft: S e r g ean t, [th e in ve st ig at in g of fic er] di d ch eck bo xe s in th e “ Pro ba bl e Co nt rib ut in g Ci rcu m st an ces ” pa rt of th e rep or t; tru e?

Serg ean t Hi ck s: Yeah

.

Mr. Swif t: And wha t was th e fir st bo x he ch eck ed wit h res pe ct to th e Val ad ez v eh ic le ?

-6

-Serg ean t Hi ck s: “ Veh ic le de fect s.”

Mr. Swi ft: Oka y . And di d he ch eck an ot he r bo x wi th res pe ct to

th e Val ad ez v eh ic le ?

Serg ean t Hi ck s: Yes

.

Mr. Swi ft: And what was t ha t b ox ?

Serg ean t Hi ck s: “ Im

pr op er l an e u se or c ha ng e.”

. . .

Mr. Swi ft: A n d w h a t w a s t h e b o x c h e c k e d f o r “P r o b a b l e Co nt rib ut in g Ci rcu m st an ces ” of th e W at ki ns Mo to r Lin es ve hi cl e an d M r. W at ts [’] op erat io n?

. . . Serg ean t Hi ck s: “

Non e.”

Dur in g cl os in g arg um e n t s , M r. Swif t rel ie d si gn ifi can tl y on Serg ean t Hick s’

te st im on y reg ard in g th e “ Pro ba bl e Co nt rib ut in g Ci rcu m st an ces ” as li st ed in th e acci de nt rep or t. Mr. Swif t arg ue d, ov er Mr. Cerv an te s’ rep eat ed ob jecti on s, th at th e jury sho ul d fo cu s o n t he co nc lu si on s re ach ed by the in ve st ig at in g o ffi cer:

Mr. Swif t: I th in k th e fir st th in g y ou ne ed to th in k ab ou t is what th e o ffi ci al Sta te Hig hwa y Pat ro l re po rt s ai d. . . .

. . .

Mr. Swi ft:

. . . [ A ]b o u t [ w h a t ] t h e “Prob ab le C o n t r i b u t i n g

Ci rcu m st an ces ” were? You kn ow wha t th ey m ark ed fo r W at ts an d W at ki ns ? “ Non e.” The of fic ia l rep or t fro m t h e Mi ss ou ri Hig hwa y Pat ro l m ark ed “ Non e.” The y di d m ark “ Im

pr op er Lan e Usa ge ” an d “ Veh ic le

-7

-Defec t” fo r Mr. Vala de z. Tha t’s wha t th e of fic ia l
rep or t s ai d, an d t ha t’s wh at y ou he ard in ev id en ce.

Su bs eq ue nt ly, th e jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t as si gn in g no fau lt fo r th e acci de nt to ei th er part y

. Vala de z ap pe al s th e di st ric t cou rt’s dec is io n to al lo w th e ad m is si on of

cert ai n po rti on s of th e acci de nt rep or t co nt ai ni ng th e co nc lu si on s of th e non- te sti fy in g in ve st ig at iv e of

fic er, whi ch ha d pr ev io us ly be en ru le d in ad m is si bl e, un de r th e th eo ry th at Vala de z h ad op en ed th e d oo r to th ei r ad m is si on

.

II . Dis cus si on

In a di ve rs it y cas e, qu es ti on s ab ou t th e ad m is si bi li ty of ev id en ce are go ve rn ed by t he Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e. Brad sh aw v. FFE Tran s p

. S e rv s., In c., 71 5 F.3 d
11 04
, 11 07 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 13 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Pi ran i, 40 6 F.3 d 54 3, 55 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (en
ba nc ). W he re we fin d an ab us e of di sc ret io n, we mu s t t h e n de te rm in e whe th er th e

erro r was ha rm le ss

. Uni te d S t a t e s v

. Lu pi no , 30 1 F.3 d 64 2, 64 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. By le r, 98 F.3 d 39 1, 39 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 )). An erro r is ha rm le ss if we fin d th at th e erro r di d no t ha ve a “ su bs ta nt ia l i nf lu en ce” o n t he jury’ s v erd ic t.
Pet ers on v. Ci ty of Pl y m ou th , 60 F.3d 46 9, 4 75 (8t h C ir. 1 99 5)

.

Vala de z cl ai m s th e d is tri ct co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n whe n it al lo wed W at ts

an d W at ki ns to in tro du ce su bs ta nt iv e ev id en ce o f fau lt fro m th e acci de nt rep or t, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t ha d pr ev io us ly ru le d in ad m is si bl e. The di st ric t c o ur t’s

pr e-t ria l ru li ng was th at th e en ti re acci de nt rep or t was in ad m is si bl e. W hi le th e reco rd
is no t en ti rel y cl ear as to th e di st ric t co ur t’s reas on in g, it ap pe ars th e co ur t was m os t

co nc ern ed ab ou t th e un av ai la bi li ty of th e of fic er. The di st ric t co ur t’s co nc ern ab ou t th e un av ai la bi li ty of th e in ve st ig at in g of fic er su gg es ts th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d t he

ac ci de nt rep or t was in su ffi ci en tl y tru st wor th y

. The refo re, we be li ev e the dis tr ic t co ur t

was co nc ern ed th e en ti re acci de nt rep or t was h e a r s a y t h a t di d no t fal l wit hi n an y
ap pl ic ab le ex cep ti on

. See Fed

. R. Evi d. 80 3( 6) & (8 ) ( Bo th th e bu si ne ss reco rd s
-8

-ex cep ti on an d pu bl ic reco rd s exc ep ti on req ui re a fi nd in g t ha t “ ne it he r th e so ur ce o f

t he in fo rm at io n no r ot he r ci rcu m st an ces in di cat e a la ck of tru st wor th in es s.”)

. Bec au se W at ts an d W at ki ns do no t ch al le ng e th at in it ia l ru li ng on ap pe al
, we acce pt th e d is tri ct co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at th e acc id en t re po rt wa s i na dm is si bl e h ears ay

.

Vala de z arg ue s t he di st ric t co ur t erre d in co nc lu di ng he ha d op en ed th e do or
to reb ut ta l ev id en ce. He as se rts th at he di d no t op en th e do or to in ad m is si bl e

ev id en ce, be cau se hi s pu rp os e in as ki ng Serg ean t Hick s ab ou t th e la ck of a st at em en t in th e acci de nt rep or t was no t to ad m i t t h e i nv es ti ga ti ng of fic er’s op in io ns an d

co nc lu si on s as su bs ta nt iv e ev id en ce. Rat he r, th e p ur po se was t o i m

pe ach W at ts by
sh owi ng th e in co ns is te nc y be twee n th e acci de nt rep or t an d hi s te st im on y at tri al

. In
h i s t e s t i mo ny, Watts cl ai m ed he to ld th e of fic er at th e sc en e th at Vala de z’s ve hi cl e

was st op pe d on th e hi gh way

. To con tra di ct th is st at em en t, Mr. Cerv an te s so ug ht to el ic it fro m Serg ean t Hick s th at th ere was no m e n t i o n in th e in ve st ig at in g of fic er’s
acci de nt rep or t t h a t V a la de z’s ve hi cl e was st op pe d, or rep or te d as st op pe d, on th e hi gh way . W at ts an d Watk in s co un te r th at Mr. Cer va nt es ’ qu es ti on in g d id op en th e do or , by so li ci ti ng an an swe r fro m Serg ean t Hi ck s re ga rd in g what th e in ve st ig at in g of fic er co ul d “ pr ov e.” Acco rd in g to W at ts an d W at ki ns , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in al lo win g Mr. Swif

t to in qu ire fu rth er ab ou t th e in ve st ig at in g of f i c e r ’s ot he r
op in io ns an d co nc lu si on s reg ard in g th e “ Pro ba bl e Co nt rib u t i ng Ci rcu m st an ces ” of
th e acc id en t, as refl ect ed in whet he r ad di ti on al bo xe s wer e, or were n ot , che ck ed

.

“ ‘T he do ct rin e of op en in g th e do or al lo ws a pa rty to ex pl or e ot he rwis e ina dm iss ibl e ev ide nc e on cro ss -ex am in at io n whe n th e op po si ng pa rty ha s m ad e unf ai r
pr ejud ic ia l us e of rel at ed ev id en ce on di rect ex am in at io n.’” Uni te d St at es v. Mi dk iff
, 61 4 F.3 d 43 1, 44 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Dur ha m , 86 8 F.2 d 10 10
, 10 12 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 )). In th eo ry , th e ad m is si on of in ad m is si bl e ev id en ce al lo ws th e in jure d pa rty to cu re th e pr ob le m an d “ cl ear up th e fal se im pr es si on ” or to “ cl ari fy or

co m pl et e an is s u e op en ed up by [o pp os in g] co un se l.” Uni te d St at es v. W om oc hi l,
77 8 F.2 d 13 11
, 13 15 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ). Bu t th e do or is no t op en ed to al l si m il ar,

-9

-in ad m is si bl e ev id en ce. Rat he r, “ [t]he ev id en ce int ro du ced [in res po ns e] m us t reb ut

so m et hi ng th at ha d be en el ic it ed

. . . .” Uni te d St at es v. Fi nc h, 16 F.3 d 22 8, 23 3 (8 th
Ci r. 19 94 ). The do ct rin e of op en in g th e do or can no t “ ‘be su bv ert ed in to a r u l e fo r in jecti on of pr ejud ic e.’” Uni te d St at es v. Bru m fie ld
, 68 6 F.3 d 96 0, 96 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng Durh am , 86 8 F .2d at 1 01 2)

.

As an in it ia l m at te r, we do ub t th at Vala de z’s qu es ti on in g el ic it ed in ad m is si bl e

ev id en ce su ch th at th e do or w a s o p e n to reb ut ta l in th e fir st in st an ce. Vala de z
at te m pt ed to im pe ach W at ts by sh owi ng th at W at ts ’ te st im on y was in co ns is te nt wit h
th e in ve st ig at in g of

fic er’s rep or t. “ ‘U nd er c e r t a in ci rcu m st an ces , a wit ne ss ’s pr io r

s i le nc e reg ard in g cri ti cal fact s m ay co ns ti tu te a pr io r in co ns is te nt st at em en t w h e r e fai lu re to m en ti on th os e m at te rs

. . . co nf li ct [s ] wit h th a t w h i c h i s la te r reca ll ed .’ ”
Uni te d St at es v. Vau gh n, 37 0 F.3 d 10 49
, 10 53 n.2 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 04 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d
St at es v. St ro th er, 49 F.3 d 86 9, 87 4 (2 d Ci r. 1 9 9 5 ) )

. Tha t is tru e he re. If W at ts th ou g h t V a la de z was st op pe d on th e ro ad
, he reas on ab ly wou ld ha ve to ld th e in ve s t i g a ti ng of

fic er th at im

po rta nt fact

. And th e in ve st ig at in g of fic er wou ld

reas on ab ly hav e rec or de d i t.

Evi de nc e th at is in ad m is si bl e fo r on e p ur po se m ay be ad m is si bl e fo r an ot he r
pu rp os e. See Fed

. R. Evi d. 10 5. A s t at em en t of fere d to im

pe ach cred ib il it y by
sh owi ng in c o n s i s t e nc y is no t of fere d fo r th e tru th of th e m at te r as se rte d in th e
st at em en t an d is th eref

or e no t h ears ay at al l. See Fed

. R. Evi d. 80 1( c) (“ ‘H ears ay ’

m ean s a st at em en t th at

. . . a pa rty of fers in ev id en ce to pro ve th e tru th of th e m at te r

as se rte d in th e st at em en t.”)

. As lo ng as th e pu rp os e of th e qu es ti on is no t to el ic it an

ou t-o f-co ur t st at eme n t f

o r th e tru th of th e m at te r as se rte d, th en th e an swe r to th e
qu es ti on do es no t cal l fo r he ars ay , ev en whe n th e an swe r in cl ud es th e co nt en t of th e

ou t-o f

- c ou rt st at em en t. See Bee ch Airc raft Co rp . v . R ai ne y , 4 88 U.S. 1 53 , 1 72 –7 3
& n.1 8 (1 98 8)

. Thu s, if th e pu rp os e of Mr. Cerv an te s’ qu es ti on was to at te m pt to de m on st rat e th e in co ns is te nc y be twee n W at ts ’ cu rren t te st im on y an d wha t he to ld th e i n ve st ig at in g of

fic er at th e sc en e (as il lu st rat ed by wha t th e of fic er reco rd e d )
, t h e n

-1 0-Mr. Cerv an te s’ qu es ti on do es no t el ic it he ars a y. See id

. Bec au se th at was th e

pu rp os e, Mr. Ce rv an te s d id no t el ic it in ad m is si bl e h ears ay

.

Eve n if we wer e t o a s su m e th at Mr. Cerv an te s’ qu es ti on in g— reg ard in g whe th er a bo x on an acci de nt rep or t was ch eck ed —i mp r o p e r l y cal le d fo r an in ad m is si bl e op in io n as su bs ta nt i v e ev id en ce of fau lt
, we fin d th at Mr. Swif t’s
fo ll ow- up qu es ti on s ab ou t t he of fic er’s ot he r co nc lu si on s in th e acci de nt rep or t di d

n o t “ cl ear up ” an y po te nt ia l m is im pr es si on le ft by Mr. Cerv an te s’ qu es ti on s. Th e

rem ed y fo r im

pr op er ev id en ce is no t al way s ad di ti on al im pr op er ev id en ce. The
do ct rin e of op en in g th e do or is m or e li m it ed th an th at

. Evi de nc e al lo wed th ro ug h th e
op en do or “ m

us t reb ut so m et hi ng th at ha d be en el ic it ed .” Fi nc h, 16 F.3 d at 23 3. The
reb ut ta l ev id en ce of

fere d to cu re th e erro r m

us t be co m

m en su rat e wit h th e m ag ni tu de
of th e erro r it se lf, or th e ex te nt to whi ch th e do or was op en ed

. Oth erwi se , co ur ts ris k

su bv ert in g th e do ct rin e of op en in g th e do or “ in to a ru le fo r in jecti on of pr ejud ic e.’”
Bru m fie ld
, 68 6 F.3 d at 96 4 (q uo ti ng Dur ha m , 86 8 F.2 d at 10 12 ). Qui te si m pl y , a

m in or m is ta ke by on e p art y do es no t g iv e p erm is si on to an op po si ng pa rty t o ad m it

an y an d a ll ot he rwis e in ad m is si bl e ev id en ce t ha t i t s o d es ire s.

Here, Mr. Swif

t’s qu es ti on s wen t t o o f a r —m ov in g be y on d rem ed y in g an im pl ic at io n th at no ot he r bo xe s wer e ch eck ed . But th at is no t t o s ay th at W at ts an d
W at ki ns were wit ho ut a rem ed y

. To th e ex te nt th ey were co nc ern ed ab ou t im pr op er
pr ejud ic e, a li m it in g in st ru ct io n wou ld ha ve ad dr es se d th os e co nc ern s. Fed

. R. Evi d.
10 5 ( “If t h e c ou rt ad m it s ev id en ce th at is ad m is si bl e ag ai ns t a pa rty or fo r a
pu rp os e—b ut no t ag ai ns t an ot he r pa rty or fo r an ot he r pu rp os e—t he co ur t, on ti m el y
req ue st , m

us t res tri ct t he ev id en ce to it s pr op er sc op e an d in st ru ct th e jury

acco rd in gl y .”). A li m it in g in st ru ct io n wou ld ha ve in fo rm ed th e jury th at th e fact th e

“ im pr op erl y st op pe d on th e hi gh way ” bo x was no t ch eck ed was ad m is si bl e on ly fo r
pu r p o s e s o f im

pe ach m en t an d was no t to be co ns id ered as su bs ta nt iv e ev id en ce of
fau lt

.

-1 1-Giv en th e di st r i c t c o ur t’s pr e-t ria l ru li ng th at th e acci de nt rep or t was

in ad m is si bl e, W at t s a n d W at ki ns sh ou ld no t ha ve be en al lo wed to in tro du ce th e of fic er’s op in io ns an d co nc lu si o ns fro m th e acci de nt rep or t. W e are pa rti cu la rly

tro ub le d by Mr. Swif

t’s em ph as is of th is ev id en ce in hi s cl os in g. In cl os in g, Mr.
Swif t rem in de d th e ju r y o f wha t th e “ of fic ia l hi gh way rep or t” co nc lu de d— th at Vala de z was at fau lt an d th at W at t s w a s no t at fau lt

. Thi s is ex act ly th e so rt of

op in io n te st im on y ab ou t an ul ti m at e co nc lu si on th at we ha ve cau ti on ed “ m erel y te ll s th e jury wha t res ul t to reac h” an d is th eref or e “ no t su ffi ci en tl y he lp fu l to th e tri er of
fact to be ad m is si bl e.” Kos te le ck y v. NL Acm e Too l/ NL In du st rie s, In c., 83 7 F.2 d
82 8, 83 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 ) (ci ti ng Hog an v. Am

. Tel

. & Te l. Co
., 81 2 F.2 d 40 9, 41 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 )). Hav in g rev ie wed th e en ti re reco rd
, we co nc lu de th e in tro du ct io n of
th e in ve st ig at in g of

fic er’s op in io ns an d co nc lu si on s by Mr. Swif t was im pr op er an d
ha d a su bs ta nt ia l i nf

lu en ce o n t he jury’ s v erd ic t.

II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th e reas on s st at ed ab ov e, we rev ers e an d rem an d fo r a ne w tri al co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

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

-1 2-