H onor abl e J

. G arvan M ur tha of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof * V erm ont , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. T he C l erk of C our t i s di r ect ed t o amend the offi ci al capt i on t o conform t o the l i s t i ng ** of the part i es above. 09-0348- pr Crens haw v . H er ber t 1 U N I TE D STA TE S C O U R T O F A PPE A LS 2 FOR TH E S ECON D CI RCU I T 3 4 S UM M ARY ORDE R 5 6 RUL I N GS B Y S UM M ARY ORDE R DO NOT HAVE PR E CE DE NT I AL E FF E CT . CI T AT I ON TO A 7 S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY 8 FE DE RAL RUL E OF AP PE L L AT E P ROCEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND T HI S COURT’ S L OCAL RUL E 3 2 . 1 . W HEN 9 C I T I N G A SU M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U ST C I T E 10 E I T HER T HE F E DE RAL AP PE NDI X OR AN ELE CT RONI C DAT ABAS E ( W I T H THE NOTA T I ON 11 “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S E RVE A COPY OF I T ON ANY 12 P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . 13 1 4 A t a sta ted ter m o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld a t 1 5 th e Da n i e l P a tr i c k M o yn i h a n Un i t e d S t a t e s Co u r th o u s e , 5 0 0 P e a r l S tr e e t , i n th e Ci tyo f Ne w 1 6 Y o rk , o n th e 2 d a yo f F e b ru a ry, tw o th o u s a n d e le v e n . nd 17 1 8 P R E S E N T : G U ID O C A L A B R E S I,

G E R A R D E . L Y N C H , 19 2 0 C i r cui tJudges , 2 1 J . G A R V A N M U R T H A , 2 2 D is tr i ct Judge. * 23

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 24 25 2 6 W IL L IA M C R E N S H A W , P la in tif f-Ap p e lla n t , 27 28 v. N o. 09- 0348- pr 29 3 0 V IC T O R H E R B E R T , R A N D Y J A M E S , S E R G E A N T K . A R N O N E , 31 DI CK T RY KOJ S KI , J E NNI F E R H

. RO BB I NO , 32 D e fen da n ts , 33 34 3 5 C .O . B A R T K O W IA K , D ef endant

-Appel l ee. ** 36 37 3 8

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --2 1 F O R A P P E L L A N T : W illia m C re n s h a w , p ro s e , M a lo n e , N e w Y o rk

. 2 3 F O R A P P E L L E E : A n d re w C u o m o , A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f th e S tate o f

N e w Y o rk ; 4 B a rb a ra D . U n d e rw o o d S o lic ito r G e n e ra l; N a n c yA . S p ie g e l, 5 S e n io r A ss ista n t S o licito r G e n e ra l; F ra n k B ra d y , A ss ista n t 6 S o lic ito r G e n e ra l o f C o u n s e l, N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk

. 7 8 A p peal fr om the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k 9 (D a v id G . L a ri m e r, Judge ). 1 0 UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND 1 1 D E C R E E D th a t th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is A F F IR M E D

. 1 2 I n thi s pr o s e pr i s oneract i on al l egi ng Fi r s tA m endmen t retali at i on and exc es s i ve 1 3 for ce, appel l antW i l l i am C r ens haw appea l s the j udgm entof the di s tr i ctcourtforappel l ee 1 4 T hom as B art kow i ak, a N ew Y or k s t at e corr ect i ons offi cer , ent er ed fol l ow i ng a j urytr i al and 1 5 verdi cti n fav or of B artko w i ak. W e assum e t he p art i es’ fam i l i ari tyw i th the und erl y i ng fact s 1 6 an d the p roc ed u ral hist o ryo f th is case , w h ich w e d etail o n ly a s n e c e s s a ryto ex p lai n o u r 1 7 d e c is io n . 18 DI S CUS S I ON 19 I . Di s c o v e r y 2 0 I n M a y 2 0 0 5 , C r e n s h a w m o v e d t o c o m p e l p r o d u c t i o n o f B a r t k o w i a k ’ s d i s c i p l i n a r y 2 1 r ecor d and anyi nves t i gat i ve fi l es cr eat ed bythe D epart m entof C o rre ct i onal Ser vi ces i n 2 2 r es pons e t o pr evi ous al l egat i ons of w r ongdoi ng m ade a gai ns tB art kow i ak. C r ens haw fi l ed 2 3 sim ilar m o tio n s th ro u g h o u t th e d isc o v e ry p e rio d a n d rig h t u p to th e b e g in n in g o f trial. M o st 2 4 o f

th e se m o tio n s w e re d e n ied , th o u g h a t lea st o n e , w h ich a p p e a rs to h a v e b e e n u n tim e ly , w e n t 2 5 undeci ded. For the purpos es of thi s appea l , w e as s um e the t i m el i nes s of thes e mot i ons and3 1 tr e a t a n yf

a ilu re to ru le a s a d e n ia l. 2 W e r evi ew di s covery ruli n g s for a bus e of di s cr et i on and w i l l r ever s e onl yi f “the 3 a c tio n ta k e n w a s im p ro v id e n t a n d a f f e c te d th e s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts o f th e p a rt ie s .” G o e t z v . 4 C r os s on, 41 F. 3d 800, 805 ( 2d C i r . 1994) ( i nt erna l q u o tat i on m arks om i t t ed)

. H er e, t he 5 d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n b yd e n y in g C re n sh a w ’s m o tio n to c o m p e l 6 prod u cti o n of B art kow i ak’ s per s onnel fi l e. T he di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l yr el i ed on def ens e 7 c o u n s e l’ s a f

f ir m a tio n t h a t B a rt k o w ia k ’s f ile c o n ta in e d n o re le v a n t d is c ip lin a ry re c o rd s . 8 C ontr aryt o C r ens haw ’ s ar gum ent , nothi ng i n B art kow i ak’s J ul y2007 decl ar at i on 9 co n tr ad ict ed d ef

en se c o u n sel’s af

firm ati o n . In f

ac t, B artko w iak a sserted that h e h ad “n ev er 1 0 been dis ci pli ned for excessi ve u se of fo rce” and ther e i s no ev i den ce t o th e c o n trary . Iti s 1 1 therefore hi gh l yun l i kely that B artko w i ak’s pers on nel fi l e con t ai ned anyrel evan tdo cum ents 1 2 and, even i f evi dence of a pr i ors ubs t ant i at ed exc es s i ve for ce i nves t i g ati on exi s t ed, on t he 1 3 f a c ts o f th e p a rticu lar c a s e b e f o re u s s u c h e v id e n c e w o u ld b e in a d m iss ib le to sh o w th a t 1 4 B a rt k o w ia k a c te d v io le n tly in th is in s ta n c e . S e e F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 4 (b ). 15 II . M o tio n to A p p o in t C o u n se l 1 6 T he di s tr i ctcourt“mayr eques tan at t orney t o r epr es ent any per s on unabl e t o aff or d 1 7 co u n sel. ” 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 1 5 (e)(1). In d eterm ining w h ethe r to ap p o int co u n sel i n a p arti cu lar 1 8 c a se , the d istric t co u rt 1 9 shou l d fir stdeterm i ne w hethe r the indi gen t ’s po si t i on seem s 2 0 l i kel y t o be of s ubs t ance . I f the cl ai m m eet s th is t h res hol d 2 1 r e q u i r e m e n t , th e c o u r ts h o u l d th e n c o n s id e rth e i n d i g e n t ’ s a b i l i ty 2 2 t o i nves t i g at e the cruci al fac t s , w hetherconfl i ct i ng evi dence 2 3 im p lic ati n g the n ee d fo r cro ss-ex am ination w il l be th e m ajor4 1 pr oof pr es ent ed t o the fa ctfi nder , the i ndi gent ’ s abi l i tyt o 2 p r e s e n tth e c a s e , t h e c o m p l e x i ty o f th e l e g a l i s s u e s a n d a n y 3 s peci al r eas on i n that cas e w hy appoi nt m ent of couns el w oul d be 4 m o re lik e ly to le a d to a ju s t d e te rm in a tio n . 5 H o d g e v . P o lice O f f ice rs, 80 2 F .2 d 5 8 , 6 1 -6 2 (2 d C ir. 1 9 8 6 ). W e re v iew a re f u sa l to a p p o in t 6 c o u n s e l f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Id . a t 6 0

. 7 W e a r e u n p e r s u a d e d b y C r e n s h a w ’ s a r g u m e n t th a t , b e c a u s e h e “ s u r v i v e d ” s u m m a r y 8 j udgm ent , the di s tr i ct court w as obl i gat ed t o appoi ntcouns el

. Fi r s t , B art kow i ak neve rm oved 9 forsu m m ary judgmentand the di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof thos e 1 0 d e f

e n d a n ts w h o s o m o v e d

. S e c o n d , w ith sta n d in g a m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t is n o t 1 1 al w ay s enough. “I f m er e bal d as s ert i ons byan i ndi gent , w hi ch t echni cal l yputa fa cti n i s s ue 1 2 an d su ff

ice to a v ert sum m ary jud g m en t, req u ir ed ap p o intm en t of [c o u n sel], the d em an d fo r 1 3 s u c h re p re s e n ta tio n c o u ld b e o v e rw h e lm in g .” Id

. 1 4 In th is c a s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt re a s o n a b ly f o u n d a p p o in te d c o u n s e l u n n e c e s s a ry. 1 5 C renshaw ’s m oti on w as m ade m ore than three y ears aft er fi l i ng his com plai nt. B ythen i tw as 1 6 cl earthathi s cl ai m s l ack ed pr ocedur al , t echni cal , orl egal compl exi ty , r equi r ed l i t t l e orno 1 7 f a c tu a l in v e s tig a tio n , a n d u ltim a te ly r e s te d o n a p u re c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n . T hatm ade 1 8 C r ens haw ’ s cl ai m s s uit abl e forpr o s e l i t i gat i on. See C ooperv. A

. Sar gent i C o. , 877 F. 2d 1 9 17 0, 17 4 (2d C i r. 19 89 ). F urtherm ore, the d i stri ctcou rthad am ple t i m e t o assess C renshaw ’s 2 0 compet encydur i ng confe r ence s and thr ough hi s w r i t t en s ubm i s s i ons t o the court

. B as ed on 2 1 C r ens haw ’ s per form ance in tho se s ett i ngs , the di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded thathe had 2 2 “demonstr at ed [the] abi l i ty t o pur s ue and pr es ent hi s cl ai m s ” nece s s ary t o l i t i gat e thi s cas e5 1 pr o se. G iven the s tr ai ght forw ar d natur e of thi s act i on and C r ens haw ’ s demonstr at ed 2 compet ence – corr obor at ed byhi s hi ghl y pr ofi ci ent pr es ent at i on of the i s s ues on appea l – t he 3 d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n b yre f u s in g to a p p o in t c o u n s e l. 4 I I I . B at s on C hal l enge 5 D efen se coun sel used a p erem ptory chall eng e t o rem ov e T ynis e E dw ards, the p anel’ s 6 onl yA fr i can- A m er i can, fr om the j ury . W hen C r ens haw obj ect ed on equa l pr ot ect i on 7 gr ounds , s ee Bat s on v. K entucky , 476 U

. S. 79, 8 9 (19 8 6 ) , defe ns e couns el j us t i fi ed the 8 chall eng e byno t i ng that Ed w ards had p revi ou slyfi l ed a civi l l aw sui tand that s he w as 9 curr ent l yempl oy ed as a fa m i l ycourtatt orney , a j ob that fr equent l yr equi r ed hert o advoca t e 1 0 on behal f of pr i s oner s . T he di s tr i ct courtacc ept ed thatr ace - neutr al expl anat i on and found 1 1 n o d iscri m inato ryinten t i n d ef en se c o u n sel ’s a c tio n s. W e re v iew that fa ctua l fi n d ing fo r 1 2 c le a r e rr o r. U n ite d S ta te s v . T a y lo r, 9 2 F .3 d 1 3 1 3 , 1 3 2 6 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). 1 3 T h a t d e f e n se c o u n se l ch a llen g e d th e o n lyA f ric a n -A m e ric a n ju ro r d o e s n o t 1 4 a u to m a tic a lly su p p o rt a n in f e re n c e o f d is c ri m in a to ry in te n t. C o u s in v . B e n n e tt, 5 1 1 F

. 3 d 3 3 4 , 1 5 338 ( 2d C i r . 2008)

. H er e, the j ur or ’ s backgr ound s uppor t s a l ogi cal r ace - neutr al m ot i vat i on 1 6 f o rth e c h a l l e n g e . I t i s e n t i r e l y p l a u s i b l e th a t a l a wy e rd e f e n d i n g a c o rr e c t i o n s o f

f i c e rf r o m 1 7 a pr i s oner ’ s l aw s ui tw o u ld be r el uct antt o s eata j ur or , of anyr ace , w ho had her s el f bee n a 1 8 p la in tif

f a n d w h o w a s e m p lo y e d in a ro le in v o lv in g a d v o c a c yo n b e h a lf o f p ri s o n e rs . 1 9 C renshaw ’s cl ai m t h a t tw o sim i l arl y -s i tuated w hit e j urors w ere notstruck i s 2 0 u n a v a ilin g . A lth o u g h the ju ryfo rew o m an v isi ted h er so n w h il e h e se rve d a jail sen tenc e f o r 2 1 D W I , s he neve rs erved as an advoc at e o n b ehal f of i ncar cer at ed cl i ent s . Si m i l ar l y , t heC r ens haw i ncorr ect l yas s ert s thatthe more r es tr i ct i ve s t andar d found i n R ul e 609( b) 1 appl i es . T hats t andar d onl y appl i es w hen t en or m or e y ear s have pa s s ed “s i nce the dat e of convi ct i on orof

the r el eas e of

the w i tnes s f

r om conf i nem ent i m pos ed f o r tha t c onvi ct i on , w hi cheve ri s the la terda te ,” a n d is th e re f o re in a p p lica b le in th is ca se , w h ich w a s tried w h ile C r ens haw w as s t i l l i ncar cer ated for the r obberyconvi ct i on w i th w hi ch he w as i m peac hed. S e e F e d . R . E v id . 6 0 9 (b ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). 6 1 s econd j ur or ’ s exper i ence on a pre vi ous ci vi l j ury i n w hi ch a j udgm ent forthe def ens e w as 2 issue d d o es notgi ve r i s e t o an i nfer ence of pos s i bl e bi as i n favorof p la in tif fs th a t m ig h t 3 m o tiv a te th e u s e o f a p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e b yd e f e n s e c o u n s e l. 4 G iv e n th e p lau sib le r a c e -n e u tra l ex p lan a tio n f o r th e c h a llen g e , w h ich th e d istric t co u rt 5 r eas onabl y acc ept ed, and C r ens haw ’ s i nabi l i ty t o demonstr at e di s cr i m i nat oryi nt ent , w e fi nd 6 n o erro r i n the d istri ct co u rt ’s de term ination that d ef en se c o u n s e l c h a lle n g ed E d w ard s fo r 7 ra c e -n e u tr a l r e a s o n s . 8 IV . E viden ti ary R u l i n gs 9 C r ens haw al l eges that the di s tr i ctcourtm ade tw o err oneous evi dent i aryrul i ngs . W e 1 0 re v ie w th o s e ru lin g s f o r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . S ilv e rs te in v . C h a s e , 2 6 0 F .3 d 1 4 2 , 1 4 5 (2 d C ir

. 1 1 2 0 0 1 ). 1 2 Fi r s t , C r ens haw ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed byperm i t t i ng defe ns e couns el t o 1 3 us e C r ens haw ’ s 1997 r obberyconvi ct i on for i m peac hm ent purpos es . H ow ever , underR ul e 1 4 609( a) ( 1) , “evi dence thata w i tnes s . . . has been convi ct ed of a [fe l ony ] s hal l be admi t t ed, ” 1 5 u n less it s “p rob ati v e v alue is sub stan ti all yo u tw eigh ed b ythe d an g er o f u n fa ir 1 6 p r e

j u d i c e . . . . ” S e e F e d

. R

. E v i d

. 6 0 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) & 4 0 3

. E v i d e n c e o f C r e n s h a w ’ s p r i o rr o b b e r y

1 1 7 w a s p ro b a tiv e o f h is v e ra c ity, se e U n ite d S ta te s v . W a s h in g to n , 7 4 6 F .2 d 1 0 4 , 1 0 5 -0 6 (2 d C ir

.T he port ion o f the s t atut e ati s s ue r eads : “[i ] nm at es s hal l notbe di s ci pl i ned for 2 m aki ng w r i t t en or or al s t at ement s , demands, orr eques t s i nvol vi ng a cha nge of i ns t i tut i onal condi t i ons , pol i ci es , rul es , r egul at i ons , orl aw s aff ect i ng an i ns t i tut i on. ” N

. Y

. C orr ect

. L aw § 1 3 8 (4). 7 1 1 984) , a ce ntr al i s s ue i n thi s cas e bec aus e the j uryw as r equi r ed t o choos e betw een t w o 2 c o n tra d icto ryv e rsio n s o f th e u n d e rly in g in c id e n t. F u rth e rm o re , the ju ryw a s w e ll aw a re th a t 3 C r ens haw w as i ncar cer at ed at the t i m e of the i nci dent and r emai ned i ncar cer ated thr ough 4 trial. It is u n lik e lyth a t ad d iti o n a l u n f a ir p re ju d ice re su lted f

ro m in f o rm in g th e ju ryth a t 5 C r ens haw w as s ervi ng a s ent ence forr obbery . A ccor di ngl y , the di s tr i ctcourtdi d notabus e 6 i t s di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng that the pr obat i ve val ue of C r ens haw ’ s pr i or r obberyconvi ct i on 7 w a s n o t s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h e d b yth e d a n g e r o f u n f a irp re ju d ic e . 8 S e c o n d , Cr e n s h a w a r g u e s th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r te rr e d by pr e ve nt i n g h i m f r o m 9 i ntr od ucing i nto evi den ce a co pyof N ew Y ork C orr ect i on s L aw § 1 38

. C rensh aw w as 2 1 0 perm i t t ed t o ques t i on the def endantaboutthe st atut e and, dur i ng thi s excha nge, he r ead a l oud 1 1 th e o p e ra tiv e te x t. W e ca n s ee no a ddi t i onal pr obat i ve val ue i n s ubm i t t i ng a pr i nt ed copyof 1 2 the s t atut oryt exti nt o evi dence and the di s tr i ct courtpr oper l yexcl uded the evi dence on t hos e 1 3 gr ounds

. I n anyevent , i tw as forthe di s tr i ctcourtt o i ns tructthe j uryon the l aw governi ng 1 4 the ca s e, notforthe j uryt o i nferl egal concl us i ons fr om l egal m at er i al s i ntr oduced i nt o 1 5 e v id e n c e .8 1 V . M o tio n fo r a N e w T r ia l 2 C re n sh a w ’s a rg u m e n t th a t h e sh o u ld re c e iv e a n e w trial o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e v e rd ict 3 w as agai nstth e w e ig h t o f t he ev i den ce i s w i tho ut m eri t

. “[T ]he w ei gh tof the evidence is 4 i t self a j uryargum ent, no ta groun d fo r r eversal on app eal

. ” R ob i nson v. C at t araugu s 5 C o u n ty, 1 4 7 F .3 d 1 5 3 , 1 6 0 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). 6 V I. M o ti o n for L ea v e to F il e a n E x h ibit 7 C r ens haw has m oved t o fi l e an exhi bi t i n s uppor t of hi s appea l

. T he exhi bi t , w hi ch 8 w as nei therfi l ed w i th the di s tr i ct court nor m ade part of the r ecor d on appea l , document s t he 9 den i al of an i nternal com plai nt that C renshaw fi l ed m ore than fi ve y ears aft er br i ng i ng t his 1 0 act i on. “O r di nar i l y , m at er i al noti ncl uded i n the r ecor d on appea l w i l l notbe cons i der ed, ” 1 1 L o r i a v . G o r m a n , 3 0 6 F

. 3 d 1 2 7 1 , 1 2 8 0 n . 2 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) , a n d w e w i l l typ i c a l l y r e v i e w o n l y 1 2 th a t e v id e n c e p re s e n te d b e lo w , L e ib o w itz v . C o rn e ll U n iv ., 4 4 5 F .3 d 5 8 6 , 5 9 2 n .4 (2 d C ir

. 1 3 2006)

. I n any event , even i f t he exhi bi t w er e re cei ved and cons i der ed, i t s heds no l i ghton 1 4 th e is s u e s a d d re s s e d o n a p p e a l a n d w o u ld n o t a f f e c t th e re s o lu tio n o f

a n yo f th o s e is s u e s . 15 CONCL US I ON 1 6 F or the fo regoi ng reas on s, C rensha w ’s m o t i on t o fil e an ex hibi ti n sup po rtof h i s 1 7 a p p e a l is D E N IE D a n d th e ju d g m e n t o f d is tr ic t c o u rt is A F F IR M E D

. 18 1 9 F O R T H E C O U R T : 2 0 C a th e rin e O ’H a g a n W o lf e , C ler k o f

C o u rt 21 2 2