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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 13 45

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Mau ric e Walke r

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

Tho m as R. Kane ; M is so ur i Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s; Geor ge Lom ba rd i; Tom Vil lm er; Am

y Ro de ric k; Dou g B ark er

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

an t s

Dale W hi te

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

an t - Ap pe ll ee

Je ro m e Nas h; Lis a Whit e, Co rrec ti on s C as e Ma na ge r II - Fa rm in gt on Co rrec ti on al

Cen te r; Un kn own W or el ly, Co rrec ti on s C as e Ma na ge r II

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

an t s

Unk no wn Am on ds , Cor rect io ns Offic er I

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

an t - Ap pe ll ee
Dway ne V. Kem

pk er, Dep ut y

Dire ct or , Zon e II - Di vi si on of Ad ul t In st it ut io ns - MO DOC

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

an t

__ __ __ __ __ __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 18 Fil ed : M arch 19 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, BENTO N, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

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

On Ju ly 3, 20 12
, Ma u r i c e W al ke r, an in m at e at Farm in gt on Co rrec ti on al
Cen te r, rece iv ed a ne w cel lm at e, Je ro m e Nas h. Acco rd in g to W al ke r, he im m ed ia te ly

to ld co rrec ti on s of

fic ers Dale W hi te an d Cat he rin e Am on ds h e f e a r e d li vi ng wit h
Nas h. Si x da y s la te r, Nas h r a p e d Wa lk er. W al ke r su ed th e two of fic ers un de r 42
U.S.C. § 19 83
, fo r fai lu re-t o- pr ot ect in vi ol at io n of th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. The jury fo un d fo r th e o ffi cers

. W al ke r ap pe al s, argu in g th e di st ric t cou rt m ad e ev id en ti ary 1

erro rs . Havi ng juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.

I.

Befo re tri al
, th e of

fic ers m ov ed to ex c l u d e a n y refe ren ce to of fic er W hi te ’s di sc ip li na ry fil e. W al ke r wan te d to cro ss -ex am in e W hi te ab ou t an in ci de n t t h a t he th ou gh t sh owe d Wh i t e ’s ch arac te r fo r un tru th fu ln es s. The di st ric t co ur t refu se d to al lo w th e cro ss -ex am in at io n, beca us e th e “ un fai r pr ejud ic e ou twei gh s th e pr ob at iv e

va lu e o f it .”

The Hon or ab le Cat he rin e D. Perr y , Unit ed St at es D ist ric t Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-W al ke r al so m o ve d to ex cl ud e an y refe ren ce to hi s “ se xu al or ie nt at io n or

se xu al rel at io ns hi ps /e nc ou nt ers .” The of fic ers res po nd ed th at ev id en ce of W al ke r’s

se xu al ly-agg re s s i ve be ha vi or to ward pr ev io us cel lm at es was rel ev an t to whe th er

“ ev eryone sh ou ld ha ve kn own ” W al ke r was in da ng e r

. Th e c ou rt sa id th at ad m is si bi li ty de pe nd ed on ho w W al ke r pr es en te d hi s cas e. The co ur t in st ru ct ed th e of fic ers ’ co un se l n ot to in tro du ce t hi s ev id en ce “ un ti l we’ve ha d a si de ba r.”

At tri al
, wit h th e rap e st ip ul at ed to , th e pa rti es fo cu se d on whe th er th e of fic ers

were aware of a su bs ta nt ia l ris k of se rio us ha rm

. Se e Whi ts on v. St on e Ct y. Ja il
, 60 2
F.3 d 92 0, 92 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ In or de r to es ta bl is h an Eig ht h Am en dm en t fai lu re-t opr ot ect cl ai m , a pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow th at th e pr is on of fi c i a l was de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to a ‘sub st an ti al ris k of se rio us ha rm .’ ”). W al k e r , t e s t i fy in g fir st , sa id
Nas h was “ si x fo ot s om et hi ng ,” “ 20 0 pl us po un ds ,” an d “ well -k no wn fo r se xu al

as sa ul ts .” (Walk er was fiv e-an d- a-h al f feet ta ll
, an d ab ou t 16 0 po un ds .) W al ke r sa id th at t h e d a y Nas h m ov ed in
, of fic er Am on ds to ld hi m sh e kn ew wha t Nas h was

“ cap a b l e o f” an d wou ld “ lo ck hi m up ” if th ere were an y pr ob le m s. Offi cer W hi te ad de d, “ You ’ll be al l rig ht .” Acco rd in g to W al ke r, he to ld th em he “ fel t th reat en ed ” by Nas h, bu t di d no t as k fo r pr ot ect iv e cu st od y

. W al ke r cl ai m ed he al so to ld of fic er Dou gl as W

. Bak er he fel t th reat en ed

. W al ke r ad m it te d he di d no t m en ti on th is to an y of fic ers aft er t he se co nv ers at io ns

.

W a l k e r th en cal le d W hi te an d Am on ds to te st ify. W hi te sa id he di d no t

rem em be r W al ke r, or an y co nv ers at io n wit h hi m

. W al ke r di d no t at te mp t to as k
W hi te ab o u t h i s di sc ip li na ry fil e. Am on ds reca ll ed te ll in g W al ke r—wi th W hi te
pr es en t— to le t an of

fic er kn ow if he ha d an y tro ub le s wit h Nas h, so m et hi ng sh e

cu st om ari ly to ld in di vi du al s wit h ne w cel lm at es

. Bu t acco rd in g to Am on ds
, W al ke r

ex pr es se d no fear s. Am on ds kn ew Nas h to be a “ bu ll y ,” bu t no t vi ol en t or kn own fo r

se xu al ass au lt s.

-3

-The of fic ers ’ on ly wit ne ss was o f fic er Bak er. He was in ch arg e of cel l

as si gn m en ts an d ha d pa ire d W al ke r an d Nas h. Bak er te st ifi ed
, co nt rad ic ti ng W al ke r, th at W al ke r di d no t te ll hi m he fel t th reat en ed by Nas h. Acco rd in g to Bak er, he di d

no t ta lk to W al ke r du rin g Ju l y 2 01 2. Bak er de sc rib ed hi s pr oc es s of as si gn in g in m at es , pa iri ng “ ag gr es si ve ” in m at es wit h ot he rs who are at le as t no t “ ti m id .” Ove r W al ke r’s ob

jecti on (an d aft er a si de ba r di sc us si on ), Bak er sa id he pa ire d W al ke r an d
Nas h b ecau se of Walk er’s ag gr es si ve be ha vi or to ward cel lm at es

.

W al ke r ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s. “ The ad m is si on or

ex cl us io n of ev id en ce is rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n; ev i d e n ti ary ru li ng s are

r e v e r s e d on ly fo r a cl ear an d pr ejud ic ia l ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Dav is v. Whi te , 8 5 8
F.3 d 11 55
, 11 59 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Thi s co ur t gi ve s

“ su bs ta nt ia l de

fe re nc e to a tri al co ur t’s ex cl us io n of ev id en ce un de r Fed eral Ru le of Evi de n c e 4 0 3 so lo ng as th e tri al co ur t’s ex erci se of di sc ret io n [d oe s] no t un fai rly

pr ev en t a pa rty fro m pr ov in g [it s] cas e.” Unit ed St at es v. Co nd

on , 72 0 F.3 d 74 8, 75 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (al te rat io ns an d em ph a s is in or ig in al ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

.

II.

W al ke r co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve al lo wed cro ss -ex am in at io n of W hi t e a b ou t a di sc ip li na ry in ci de nt al le ge dl y pr ob at iv e of hi s ch arac te r fo r

un tru th fu ln es s. W al ke r su m m ari zed hi s po si ti on at th e pr e-t ria l hear in g on m ot io ns in li m in e:

THE COURT: W ha t is it th at yo u s a y h e was di sc ip li ne d fo r, an d

ex act ly wha t ev id en ce are y ou go in g to in tro du ce? Not why. You wan t to cro ss -ex am in e hi m on it
, or y ou ’re no t go in g to in tro du ce an ex hi bi t?

MR. MEYER [Walk er’s co un se l]: It wou ld no t b e th ro ug h a n e xh ib it

. It wo ul d b e u nd er 6 08 (b ) th ro ug h i nq ui ry on ly on c ro ss -ex am in at io n.

-4

-THE COURT: Oka y . So t el l m e wha t t he in ci de nt was.

MR. M EYER: So , Yo ur Hon or , t he in ci de nt it se lf in vo lv ed pri nt in g a ph ot og rap h o f a n of

fen de r an d writ in g de ro ga to ry co m m en ts on it an d th en th e fil in g of th e rep or t a n d in ve st ig at io n th at fo ll owe d, an d as a

res ul t of th is
, th er e w e r e s ix DOC po li ci es th at were fo un d to be vi ol at ed

. The fin al two in cl ud ed be in g tru th fu l in rep o r t s , i n te rv ie ws, du rin g in ve st ig at io ns , in qu iri es , an d ot he r de al in gs wit h th e pu bl ic an d st aff an d fu ll y co op erat in g wit h al l ad m in is tra ti ve in qu iri es an d fu ll y an d tru th fu ll y rel at in g kn owl ed ge of al l fact s pe rta in in g to al le ge d be ha vi or , an d so I th in k bo th of th es e are pr op erl y br ou gh t in un d e r 6 0 8 (b ) as sp eci fic in st an ces of c on du ct th at go es to ward s t ru th fu ln es s.

. . .

THE COURT:

. . . I th in k th at th e p o t e n t i a l pr ejud ic e an d un fai r pr ejud ic e ou twei gh s th e pr ob at iv e va lu e o f it

. So I’m go in g to su st ai n [th e of fic ers ’ m ot io n to ex cl ud e refe ren ce to W hi te ’s di sc ip li na ry fil e].

A.

A pa rty m ay cl ai m erro r in th e ex c l u s i o n of ev id en ce on ly if it “ in fo rm s th e

co ur t of it s su bs ta nc e by an of fer of pr oo f, un le ss th e su bs ta nc e was ap pa ren t fro m th e

co nt ex t.” Fed. R. Ev id

. 10 3( a) (2 )

. Se e Mur ph y v. Mi ss ou ri Dep t. of Co rr

. , 50 6 F.3 d
11 11
, 11 17 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (“ One of th e m os t fu nd am en ta l pr in ci pl es in th e la w of

ev id en ce is th at in or de r to ch al le ng e a tri al co ur t’s ex cl us io n of ev id en ce, an at to rn ey

m us t p res erv e th e is su e fo r ap pe al by m ak in g a n o ffer of p ro of .”). “ The pu rp os e o f

an of fer of pr oo f is to in fo rm th e co ur t an d op po si ng co un se l of th e su bs ta nc e of th e

ex cl ud ed ev id en ce an d to pr ov id e th e ap pe ll at e co ur t wit h a reco rd su ffi ci en t to al lo w it to de te rm in e if t he ex cl us io n was erro ne ou s.” Unit ed St at es v. El be rt , 56 1 F.3 d
77 1, 77 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Se e St ro ng v. Mer ca nt

il e Tr. Co

. , 81 6 F.2 d 42 9, 43 2 (1 98 7) (“ The pu rp os e o f th e o ffer of pr oo f is to al lo w b ot h th e tri al co ur t an d th e ap pe ll at e

-5

-co ur t on rev ie w to as cert ai n whe th er ex cl ud in g th e ev id en ce cau se d an y pr ejud ic e to

th e ap pe ll an t.”)

.

A pa rty m us t in fo rm th e di st ric t co ur t of th e su bs ta nc e of th e ev id en ce (u nl es s
ap pa ren t fr om

th e co nt ex t) e ve n where
, as he re, the co ur t gran te d a pre -tr ia l m ot io n in li m in e ex cl ud in g th e ev id en ce. Se e Sm it h v. Hy- V ee, In c. , 62 2 F.3 d 90 4, 90 8- 09 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). True
, “ [o ]nce th e co ur t ru le s de fin it iv el y on th e r e c o r d

— e it he r be fo re or at tri al —a pa rty ne ed no t re ne w an

. . . of fer of pr oo f to pr es erv e a cl ai m of

erro r fo r ap pe al .” Fed. R. E vi d. 10 3( b) (em ph as is ad de d) . B ut th is do es no t m ean

no of fer is req ui red at al l. Se e Hy- V ee , 62 2 F.3 d at 90 9 (“ As th e Adv is or y Co m m it te e Not e s o b s e r ve , [ Ru le 10 3( b) ] ap pl ie s ‘w he n th e pa rty h as ot he rwis e sa ti sf ie d th e

. .

. of fer of pr oo f req ui rem en t of Ru le 10 3( a).’”). It is al so tru e th at “ th e op po si ti on to ”

a pr e-t ria l m ot io n in li m in e can se rv e as th e req ui red o f f e r o f pr oo f. Se e Law re

y v. G o o d S a m ar it

an Ho sp . , 75 1 F.3 d 94 7, 95 1- 52 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ), ci ti ng Shel to n v. Kenn ed y Fund in g, In c. , 62 2 F.3 d 94 3, 95 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (aft er th e di st ric t co ur t
gr an te d a m ot io n in li m in e ex cl u d i n g t e s t i mo ny, an of fer of pr oo f at tri al was no t
req ui red whe re th e pa rty op po si ng th e m ot io n ha d fil ed an affi da vi t th at “ ou tl in ed th e

su bs ta nc e of [th e] pr op os ed te st im on y ”). Bu t th is is tru e on ly if a n o p p os it io n

su ffi ci en tl y

in fo rm s t he co ur t o f th e su bs ta nc e o f th e p ro po se d e vi de nc e.

The qu es ti on he re is whe th er th e co ll oq uy wit h th e di st ric t c o u r t su ffi ci en tl y in fo rm ed th e co ur t of th e su bs ta n c e o f th e pr op os ed cro ss -ex am in at io n. W al ke r’s

co un se l di d no t pr ov id e qu es ti on s fo r th e pr op os ed cro ss -ex am in at io n an d th e li ke ly

res po ns es

. Thi s co ur t ha s st res se d th e “i m po rta nc e of ex pr es si ng pr eci se ly th e

su bs ta nc e of th e ex cl ud ed ev id e n c e

. . . by st at in g wit h sp eci fic it y wha t he or sh e

an ti ci pa te s wil l be th e wit ne ss ’ te st im on y or , at th e tri al co ur t’s di sc ret io n, by pu tt in g th e wit ne ss on th e st an d, o ut si de th e p res en ce o f th e jury, and eli ci ti ng res po ns es in

a qu es ti on an d an swe r fo rmat.” St ro ng , 81 6 F.2 d at 43 2 & n.4

. Here, co un se l di d de sc rib e th e su bjec t of th e pr o p os ed cro ss -ex am in at io n, th e arg um en t fo r it s ad m is si on , an d th e co nt en ts of th e of fic ia l rep or t in th e reco rd

. Thi s pa ral le ls an of fer

-6

-of

pro of th is co ur t h as co ns id ered su ffi ci en t. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Al st on , 62 6 F .3d
39 7, 4 03 & n .6 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ).

Thi s co ur t “ ne ed no t de fin it iv el y de ci de th e su ffi ci en cy of [Walk er’s] of fer of

pr oo f be cau se , reg ard le ss o f th e st an da rd of rev ie w, [Walk er’s] cl ai m fai ls .” Se e El be rt , 56 1 F.3 d at 77 6. Se e al so Unit ed St at es v. Wes t , 82 9 F.3 d 10 13
, 10 19 n.5 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (d is m is si ng Ru le 10 3( a)(2 ) arg um en t as “ of no co ns eq ue nc e as it do es no t al te r ou r co nc lu si on ”). Thi s co ur t as su m es , wit ho ut de ci di ng , th at W al ke r’s of fer of

pr oo f su ffi ci en tl y pr es erv ed th e is su e whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve al lo wed

cro ss -ex am in at io n a bo ut th e in ci de nt di sc us se d i n t he co ll oq uy.

B.

Tho ug h ex tri ns ic ev id en ce is ge ne ral ly in ad m is si bl e to pr ov e spe ci fi c ins ta nc es of a wit ne ss ’s co nd uc t, “ th e co ur t m ay , o n cro ss -ex am in at io n, al lo w th em to be
in qu ire d in to if th ey are pr ob at iv e of th e ch arac te r fo r tru th fu ln es s or un tru th fu ln es s of ” th e wit ne ss

. Fed. R. Ev id

. 60 8( b)

. Howev er, “ [e]ven if adm is sa bl e un de r Ru le
60 8( b)
, a di st ric t co ur t m ay ne ve rth el es s ex cl ud e th e ev id en ce if it s ‘pro ba ti ve va lu e is su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed by th e da ng er of un fai r pr ejud ic e, co nf us io n of th e is su es ,
or m is le ad in g th e jury

. . . .’” U n i t e d S t a t es v. Bea l
, 43 0 F.3 d 95 0, 95 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ), qu ot in g Fed. R. E vi d. 40 3

. Se e Ki ng v . A h r e n s , 16 F.3 d 26 5, 26 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (“ The Ru le 40 3 ba la nc in g of pr ob at iv e va lu e ve r s u s p reju di ci al effe ct is an in te gr al st ep to ward a de te rm in at io n of ad m i s s i b il it y un de r

. . . Ru le 60 8( b) .”)
B e cau se ev id en ce of W hi te ’s di sh on es ty is pr ob at iv e of hi s ch arac te r fo r

un tru th fu ln es s, t he qu es ti on is whe th er t he pro po se d c ro ss -ex am in at io n’s p ro ba ti ve

va lu e is su bs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh ed by its da ng er.

The pr ob at iv e va lu e of th e pr op os ed cro ss -ex am in at io n was lo w. True
, it m ay ha ve im pe ach ed W hi te ’s cred ib il it y

. The al le ge d pri or un tru th fu ln es s occ ur red in a si tu at io n li ke th at at th e tri al : in qu iry in to accu sa ti on s of on -th e-jo b m is co nd uc t. Cf

.

-7

-Al

st on , 62 6 F.3 d at 40 4 (p ro ffer ed ev id en ce was “ no t al l th at pr ob at iv e of [wit ne ss ’s] ch arac te r fo r tru th fu ln es s,” be cau se th e “ m ot iv e” fo r th e pr ev io us li e was di ffer en t).
Bu t th e p ro ba ti ve va lu e o f im pe ach in g Whi te ’s cred ib il it y was lo w. “ To de te rm in e th e v al ue of i m

pe ach in g [a wit ne ss ] . . . we m us t ex am in e [t he wit ne ss ’s] tes ti m on y

as a who le .” Unit

ed St at es v. Log an , 12 1 F.3 d 11 72
, 11 75 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ). W hi te
te st ifi ed on ly th at he di d no t rem e mb er an y in te ract io n wit h W al ke r. As W al ke r

em ph as iz ed at t r i a l
, th is ne it he r di rect ly ex cu lp at ed th e of fic ers no r co nt rad ic te d
W al ke r’s st or y

. Id

. at 1 17 6 (“ va lu e o f im

pe ach in g” a wit ne ss was “ rel at iv el y lo w,” whe re m uc h o f th e wit ne ss ’s tes ti m on y was “ ne it he r ex cu lp at or y no r in cu lp at or y ”).
Eve n if th e jury f

o u nd W hi te was lying
, th ere was st il l Am on ds ’s co nf li ct in g, un

im pe ach ed acco un t. Se e Al

st on , 62 6 F.3 d at 40 4 (p ro ba ti ve va lu e of pr op os ed Ru le
60 8( b) cro ss -ex am in at io n was “ li m it ed ,” in pa rt be cau se th e wit ne ss ’s te st im on y was

“ no t th e on ly ev id en ce li nk in g” th e de fen da nt to t h e c rime); Unit ed St at es v. Bec k
, 55 7 F.3 d 61 9, 62 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (d is tri ct co ur t di d no t a b u s e it s di sc ret io n in

pr ecl ud in g Ru le 608( b) cr oss -e xa m inati on , be cau se “ ev en if [th e wit ne ss ’s] te st im on y

were th or ou gh ly di sc red it ed

. . . su ch im pe ach m en t wou ld ha ve ha d no im pa ct on th e” si m il ar t es ti m on y

of o th ers ).

W al ke r e mp h a s iz es th at th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed in res po ns e to th e of fic ers ’

m ot io n fo r a di rect ed ve rd ic t th at th is was “ a cred ib il it y cas e,” la te r ad di ng , “ th e on ly is su e to th e jury is

. . . th e cred ib il it y is su e

. . . .” Se e Cum m in gs v. Ma lo ne , 99 5 F.2 d
8 1 7
, 82 5- 26 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (d is tri ct co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ex cl ud i n g im pe ach m en t ev id en ce un de r Ru le 40 3 in pa rt be cau se “ cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es was
pa ram ou nt ”). Cf

. Unit ed St at es v. Denni s , 6 2 5 F

. 2 d 78 2, 79 8 (1 98 0) (“ W he re th e
te st im on y of on e wit ne ss is cri ti cal to th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e, th e de fen da nt ha s a rig ht

to at ta ck th at wit ne ss ’s cred ib il it y by a wid e-ra ng in g c r os s- ex am in at io n.” ). Bu t as di sc us se d, W

hi te ’s cred ib il it y was no t pa ram ou nt

. In an y ev en t, th e im po rta nc e of wit ne ss cred ib il it y al on e do es no t r e q u i r e a d mi ss io n. Se e Ki ng , 16 F.3 d at 26 8- 70 (d is tri ct co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ex cl ud in g Ru le 60 8( b) cro ss -ex am in at io n

un de r Ru le 40 3, ev en th ou gh “ [c]red ib il it y was a ke y

is su e”).

-8

-In co nt ras t, th e da ng er of un fai r pr ejud ic e an d co nf us io n of th e is su es was hi gh

.

“ ‘U nf ai r pr ejud ic e’ (u nd er Ru le 40 3) m ean s an un du e te nd en cy to su gg es t de ci si on

on an im pr op er ba si s, co m

m on ly, th ou gh no t ne ces sa ril y , an em ot io na l on e.” Denni s , 62 5 F.2 d at 79 6

. The di sc ip li na ry in ci de nt he re pr im ari ly in vo lv ed
mi s c o n d u c t

— p r i n t i n g a n d d i s t r i b u t i n g d e r o g a t o r y c o mme n t s a b o u t a n in m at e

— u n r e la te d to W hi te ’s c ha ract er fo r un tru th fu ln es s. Tha t m is co nd uc t co ul d ha ve en co ur ag ed de ci si on on an im pr op er ba si s. Se e Old Chi ef v. Unit ed St at es , 51 9
U.S. 17 2, 18 0 (1 99 7) (“ [I]m pr o p e r g r o u nd s cert ai nl y in cl ud e

. . . ge ne ral iz in g a de fen da nt ’s earl ie r ba d act in to ba d ch arac te r an d ta ki ng th at as rai si ng th e od ds th at he di d th e la te r ba d act no w ch arg ed

. . . .”); Unit ed St at es v. Lupi no , 30 1 F.3 d 64 2,
64 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (ev id en ce of de fen da nt ’s dr ug -d eal in g was un fai rly p r e ju d i c ia l
in a pr os ecu ti on fo r as sa ul t, be cau se it “ crea te d t h e ris k th at th e jury wou ld as su m e th at [th e de fen da nt ] was so m eo ne wit h a pr op en si ty fo r cri m in al be ha vi or ”). W hi le th e di sc ip li na ry in ci de nt in vo lv ed vi ol at in g tru th fu ln es s- rel at ed po li ci es , th e of fer of

pr oo f do es no t de ta il ho w W hi te vi ol at ed t h e m. The pr op os ed cro ss -ex am in at io n

co ul d ha ve “ res u l t e d in th e ki nd of m in i-t ria l on a pe rip he ral ly rel at ed m at te r th at [Ru le 60 8( b) ] is de si gn ed to pre ve nt .” Se e Al st on , 62 6 F .3d at 4 04

.

W al ke r co ul d p erh ap s ha ve le ss en ed th es e ris ks by li m it in g qu es ti on in g to

av oi d m en ti on of th e pr im ary m is co nd uc t. Bu t th is co ur t mu s t l o o k to th e of fer of

pr oo f an d no t “ ev al ua te th e tri a l c o u r t ’s de ci si on in li gh t of ho w th e ap pe ll an t no w ch arac te riz es th e ex cl ud ed ev id en ce.” Unit ed St at es v. Ki rk ie
, 26 1 F.3 d 76 1, 76 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). W al ke r’s of

fer of pr oo f br oa dl y de sc rib es th e in ci de nt , wit ho ut in di cat in g li m it s o n t he pro po se d c ro ss -ex am in at io n. Cf

. Lee v. Ra

pi d C it y Ar ea Scho ol

Dis t. No. 51 -4
, 98 1 F.2 d 31 6, 32 1- 22 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (n o ab us e of di sc ret io n in ex cl ud in g
te st im on y , in pa rt be cau se th e “ of fer m ad e no effo rt to sa ti sf y [th e co ur t’s] co nc ern s” ab ou t ge ne ral it y ). Add it i o n a l l y, Wa lk er ap pe ars to reject an y li m it on th e cro ss

ex am in at io n. Fo r ex am

pl e, hi s ap p e l l a t e br ie f sa y s, “ The tri al co ur t was wro ng to
pr oh ib it W al ke r fro m cro ss -ex am in in g W hi t e ab ou t hi s pr io r m is co nd uc t (an d

es pe ci al ly the li es he to ld ab ou t t ha t m is co nd uc t) . . . .”

-9

-Thi s is a cl os e qu es ti on , bu t “ th e de fere nt ia l st an da rd of rev ie w ti ps th e sc al es

in fav or of up ho ld in g” th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on

. Se e Co nd on , 72 0 F.3 d at 75 5- 56

. Be ca use the pr opos ed cro ss -ex am in at io n ha d li m it ed pr ob ative va lue an d sig nif ic an tly ris ke d un fai r pr ejud ic e an d co nf us io n of th e is su es , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ex cl ud in g th e ev id en ce. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Jo hns on , 9 68 F.2 d 76 5,
76 6- 67 (8 t h Ci r. 19 92 ) (ci ti ng “ th e br oa d di sc ret io n gr an te d to th e tri al co ur t” in ho ld in g th at th e d i s tri ct co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by re fu si ng to al lo w R ul e 6 0 8 ( b) cro ss -ex am in at io n of a wit ne ss ab ou t a su sp en si on fo r, am on g ot he r th in gs ,

“ ha vi ng li ed to hi s su pe rv is or ”); Al st on , 62 6 F.3 d at 40 4 (d is tri ct co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ex cl ud in g Ru le 60 8( b) cro ss -exam ina tio n unde r Ru le 40 3, whe re “ [i]n ad di ti on to ha vi ng on ly li m it ed pr ob at iv e va lu e, th e pr of fere d c r os s- ex am in at io n

wou ld ha ve crea te d a da ng er o f un fai r pr ejud ic e”).

W al ke r rel ie s on Uni te d S ta te s v. Whi tmo re , 35 9 F .3d 60 9, 61 8- 22 (D.C. Ci r. 2 0 0 4 )

. The di st ric t co ur t th ere pr ecl ud ed th e de fen da nt fro m cro ss -ex am in i n g a
pr os ecu ti on wit ne ss ab ou t: (1 ) a jud ge ’s fin di ng in a pr ev io us cas e th at th e wit ne ss ha d li ed un de r oa th ; (2 ) th e wit ne ss ’s dr iv er’s li cen se su sp en si on an d fai lu re to rep or t th e su sp en si on to hi s su pe rv is or s; an d (3 ) th e wit ne ss ’s fai lu re to m ak e ch il d su pp or t
pa y m en ts

. Id

. at 61 4- 15

. The D.C. Ci rcu it fo un d erro r. Id

. at 61 8- 22

. W

hi tmo re is

n ot pe rs ua si ve au th or it y fo r rev ers al he re. The pr ob at iv e va lu e th ere was gr eat er, be cau se th e wit ne ss “ pr ov id ed
, al m os t ex cl us iv el y , th e ev id en ce co nn ect in g” t h e de fen da nt to th e cri m e. Id

. at 61 3 (n ot in g th at th e de fen da nt “ de fen de d on th e gr ou nd th at [th e wit ne ss ] ha d fab ric at ed th e s t o r y”) (fo ot no te om it te d)

. Als o, th e ris k of

un fai r pr ejud ic e th ere was lo wer, be cau se th e wit ne ss , un li ke W hi te , was no t a pa rty in th e cas e.

C.

In hi s ap pe ll at e br ie f, W al ke r refe ren ces a se co nd in ci de nt in W hi te ’s di sc ip li na ry fil e. Acco rd in g to th e rep or t on th is in ci de nt , W hi te was su sp en de d on e

-1 0-da y fo r fai li ng to fil e a us e-o f-fo rce rep or t “ im m ed ia te ly” an d “ fai li ng to m en ti on th e fo rce ut il iz ed at 1: 08 p.m

. an d on ly rep or t[i ng ] th e us e of fo rce whi ch oc cu rred at 1: 10

p.m .” W al ke r’s co un se l di d no t m en ti on th is in ci de nt in th e co ll oq uy wit h th e di st ric t

co ur t, n or was i t ap pa ren t fr om th e co nt ex t. W al ke r fai le d to pr es erv e th is is su e fo r
ap pe al

. Se e Fed. R. Evi d. 10 3( a) (2 )

.

Abs en t an of

fer of pr oo f, “ th is c o u r t m ay rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r.” Ha rr is v. Ch a n d
, 5 0 6 F.3 d 11 35
, 11 41 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). “ Pl ai n- erro r rev ie w pe rm it s rev ers al

on ly if th e erro r was so pr ejud ic ia l as to hav e affe ct ed su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s res ul ti ng in

a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce.” Id

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

. Thi s se co nd
in ci de nt , wit h le ss pr ob at iv e va lu e th an th e fir st , si m il arl y ris ke d un fai r pr ejud ic e an d

co nf us io n o f th e is su es . This co ur t fi nd s n o p la in erro r.

III.

W al ke r co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng Bak er’s

te st im on y ab ou t hi s aggr es siv e be ha vio r tow ar d cellm at es

. Dur in g Bak er’s te st im on y , W al ke r’s co un s e l req ue st ed a si de ba r an d ob jecte d to an y m en ti on of hi s se xu al
hi st or y . The co ur t o ve rru le d t he ob jecti on . Bak er t he n t es ti fie d:

Q. And co ul d you tel l u s who was res po ns ib le fo r pl aci ng Mr. Walk er

an d J ero m e Nas h i n t he same cell ?

A. I was.

Q. And ho w di d you m ak e th at de te rm in at io n?

MR. M EYER: Sam e o bjec ti on , You r Hon or

.
THE COURT: And it ’s no te d fo r th e rec or d a nd ov erru le d.

-1 1-A. B a s ic al ly, [Walk er’s] pa st th ree cel lm at es , al th ou gh ev erythi ng

m at ch ed up , th ey cam e on e at a ti m e, as it was ov er a pe rio d of ti m e,

co m pl ai ni ng , be gg in g to ge t ou t of th e cel l be cau se of hi m in ti m id at in g

an d c oe rci ng th em , pre ss ur in g t he m

.

W al ke r arg ue s th at Bak er’s st at em en t is in ad m is si bl e, b ecau se hi s reas on fo r
pa iri ng W al ke r an d Nas h is irr el ev an t. Se e Fed. R. Ev id

. 40 1 ; 40 2

. Eve n if rel ev an t, he arg ue s, it was in ad m is si bl e un de r Ru le 41 2( a), whi ch ge ne ral ly pr oh ib it s, in ci vi l

pr oc eed in gs “ in vo lv in g al le ge d se xu al m is co nd uc t,” ev id en ce of fere d to pr ov e a vi ct im ’s “ se xu al be ha vi or ” or “ se xu al pr ed is po si ti on .” Su ch ev id en ce is ad m is si bl e

on ly if “ it s pr ob at iv e va lu e su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh s th e da ng er of ha rm to an y vi ct im

an d of un fai r pr ejud ic e to an y pa rty.” Fed. R. Ev id

. 41 2( b)(2 )

. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Wa rd lo w , 83 0 F.3 d 81 7, 82 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (“ The pu rp os e of th e Ru le 41 2 res tri ct io n is ‘to sa feg ua rd th e al le ge d vi ct im ag ai ns t th e in va si on of pr iv acy, po te nt ia l

em ba rras sm en t an d se xu al st ereo typin g th at is as so c ia te d wit h pu bl ic di sc lo su re of
in ti m at e se xu al de ta il s an d th e in fu si on of se xu al in nu en do in to th e f a c t fin di ng
pr oc es s.’”). Alt ern at iv el y , W al ke r arg ue s th e ev id en ce is in ad m i s s i b l e un de r Ru le
40 3.

Thi s co u rt ne ed no t ad dr es s th es e arg um en ts , be cau se an y erro r in ad m it ti ng Bak er’s te st im on y was ha rm le ss

. “ To be ha rm le ss erro r, th e ad m it te d ev id en ce m us t

no t h av e h ad a su bs ta nt ia l in flu en ce on th e v erd ic t.” Ba ti st e-Da vi s v. Li nca re , 52 6
F.3 d 37 7, 38 1 (8 t h Ci r. 20 08 ). Bak er’s te st im on y ha d li tt le , i f an y , p ro ba ti ve va lu e

on th e ke y is su e whe th er W al ke r to ld W hi te an d Am on ds he fel t th reat en ed

. W al ke r rel ie d on h i s o w n t e st im on y to sh ow th at he di d. The of fic ers co nt rad ic te d hi m ,
em ph as iz in g in co ns is te nc ie s in hi s st or y

. Any ad di ti on al effe ct of Bak er’s st at em en t

on W al ke r’s cred ib il it y

was i ns ig ni fic an t.

W al ke r arg ue s Bak er’s te st im on y in tro du ced “ se xu al st ereo t yp in g” an d

“ in nu en do in to th e fact fin di ng pr oc es s.” Se e Wa rd lo w , 83 0 F.3 d a t 8 20

. Bu t th e
t e s t im on y act ua ll y ad m it te d ov er W al ke r’s ob jecti on was br ie f. Neit he r co u n s e l

-1 2-al lu de d to it ag ai n. It was n o n

- i n f l am m at or y , no t ex pl ic it ly refe ren ci ng se xu al be ha vi or

. Fi na ll y , th e rap e—t he fact u a l i s su e whe re a jury m ig ht us e se xu al

st ereo typin g or in nu en do —was st ip ul at ed

. Eve n if im pr op erl y ad m it te d, Bak er’s

te st im on y di d n ot ha ve a su bs ta nt ia l ef fect on th e jury’ s v erd ic t. 2

** ** ** *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

W al ke r arg ue s th at th e cu m ul at iv e effe c t o f th e al le ge d erro rs warra nt s 2

rev ers al

. Bu t th is co ur t do es no t “ ap pl y th e [cu m ul at iv e-er ro r] do ct rin e whe n th e

ev id en ti ary ru li ng s are wit hi n th e tri al co ur t’s di sc ret io n.” McPhe et er s v . B l a c k & V ea t c h C o r p . , 42 7 F.3 d 10 95
, 11 06 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). In an y ev en t, th e cu m ul at iv e effe ct of th e al le ge d erro rs , if an y , di d no t am ou nt to su bs ta nt ia l pr ejud ic e. Id

. (“ W e wil l no t rev ers e ba se d up on th e cu m ul at iv e effe ct of erro rs un le ss th ere is su bs ta nt ia l pr ejud ic e . . . .”).

-1 3-