2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-30-2008 

# M ullins v . P hi l a delphi a P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1578

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M ull in s v . P hi l a de lp hi a" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 780. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/780NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 1578

___________ X A V I ER M U LLI N S, A ppel l ant

v. C I T Y O F PH I L A D E L PH I A ; W A L I SH A B A Z Z , i n hi s i ndi vi dual c a p a c i t ya n d a s a n a g e n to f th e Ci t yo f

P h i l a d e l p h i a ; HUGH B E C K E R , i n hi s i ndi vi dual capa ci t yand as an age ntof the

C ityo f P h ilad e lp h ia

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- cv- 02186) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn R . Padova

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 18, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , SM I T H and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y30, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM X avi erM ul l i ns appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entent er ed i n appel l ees ’ favor a f ter a ju rytrial. T h e h isto ryo f th is c a se a n d th e d e tails o f M u lli n s’s c laim s a re w e ll2

know n t o t he part i es and nee d notbe di s cus s ed atl ength. B r i efl y , M ul l i ns fi l ed a c o u n se led c iv il righ ts c o m p lain t alle g in g th a t h e w a s b e a ten b ytw o d e p u tysh e rif f s w h ile an i nm at e i n t he C r i m i nal J us t i ce Cent er . A ft era j uryfound i n favorof the appe l l ees , t he D is tr ic t C o u rt e n te re d ju d g m e n t in th e irf a v o r, a n d M u llin s f

ile d a p ro s e n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. M u lli n s a rg u e s th a t th e v e rd ict is a g a in st th e w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e . “[ N ]e w trials b ec au se th e v erd ictis ag ains t th e w eigh t of the e v iden ce are p rop er o n lyw h en the re co rd s how s t hatt he j ur y ’ s ver di ctr es ul t ed i n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce orw her e the ver di ct , on t he record, cri es out t o b e ov erturned o r s ho cks ou r consci ence.” M arr a v. P hil a. H ou s. A u th ., 4 9 7 F .3 d 2 8 6 , 3 0 9 n .1 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) q u o tin g W ill iam so n v . C o n so lid a ted R a il C orp. , 926 F. 2d 1344, 1353 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . H er e, M ul l i ns and thr ee i nm at es t es t i fi ed that a p p e llee S h a b a z z b e g a n th e a lterc a tio n b yp u n c h in g M u lli n s. M u lli n s a n d a n o th e r in m a te t es t i fi ed thatM ul l i ns w as ki cked a nd hi taft erbei ng r es t r ai ned. A ppel l ees Shabazz and B ecke ras w el l as t w o ot hers her i ffs t es t i fi ed thatM ul l i ns s t art ed the fi ghtbypunchi ng Shabazz s ever al t i m es and thati tt ook s ever al s her i ffs t o br i ng M ul l i ns dow n. T hey t es t i fi ed thatM ul l i ns w as notas s aul t ed once he w as r es t r ai ned. T hus , the ver di ctw as bas ed on the cr edi bi l i t yof the w i t nes s es . C r edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons ar e the pr ovi nce of t he fa ct fi nder . Scul l yv. U S W A T S, I nc. , 238 F. 3d 497, 506 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W e maynot s ubs t i tut e ourj udgm entfort hatof the j uryon di s put ed i s s ues of fa ct . G ebhar dtv. W i l s on F reigh t Fo rw ard ing C o . , 3 4 8 F . 2 d 1 2 9 , 1 3 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 6 5 ).3

M ul l i ns al s o ar gues t hathe s houl d have be en perm i t t ed t o i ntr oduce e vi dence t hat he w as found notgui l t yof as s aul t i ng Shabazz . W e r evi ew the admi s s i on orexcl us i on of evi dence foran abus e of di s cr et i on. St ecyk v. B el l H el i copt erT extr on, I nc. , 295 F. 3d 40 8, 41 2 (3d C i r. 20 02 ). T he st and ards of proof i n the cr i m i nal cas e and i n thi s ci vil case ar e di ffe r ent . T hata fa ct fi nderdi d notfi nd bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatM ul l i ns as s aul t ed Shabaz z does notm ean thata ci vi l j urycoul d notfi nd bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hatM ul l i ns s t ar t ed the conf l i ct . See O ne LotE m er al d C utSt ones and O ne R i ng v. U ni t ed St at es , 409 U . S. 232, 235 ( 1972) ( “[A n acqui t t al ] does notcons t i tut e an a d ju d ica tio n o n th e p re p o n d e ra n c e -o f -th e -e v id e n c e b u rd e n a p p lica b le in c iv il pr ocee di ngs . ”) T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng M ul l i n’ s m ot i on to a d m it ev id e n c e o f

h is a c q u itt a l. M u lli n s c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld h a v e a llo w e d M u lli n s to c a ll D et ect i ve Fong, w ho i nves t i gat ed the i nci dent , as a w i t nes s . A ttr i al , M ul l i ns ’ s couns el ind icated that h e w an ted to ca ll F o n g o n lyto testi fyab o u t th e li m it ed sco p e o f F o n g ’s i nves t i gat i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts us t ai ned the appe l l ees ’ obj ect i on as t o r el evanc ybut not ed thatM ul l i ns coul d cal l Fong on r ebut t al ; M ul l i ns di d notdo s o. M ul l i ns now ar gues t hathe w as s eeki ng Fong’ s t es t i m onyon t he authent i ci t yof the phot ogr aphs t aken of Shabaz z af

t ert he i nci dentand w hetherFong’ s i nves t i gat i on r evea l ed thatM ul l i ns had as s aul t ed Shabaz z. H ow ever , M ul l i ns hi m s el f i ntr oduced the phot ogr aphs of Shabaz z at trial, a n d F o n g h a d n o p e rso n a l k n o w led g e o f th e e v e n ts a t issu e . T h e D istric t C o u rt d id4

notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng t o al l ow M ul l i ns t o cal l Fong. M ul l i ns ar gues t hathe s houl d have be en perm i t t ed t o cal l thr ee w i t nes s es w ho w o u ld testi fythat S h ab az z h ad assa u lt ed them w h il e the yw ere inm ates. H o w ev er, pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Evi dence 404( a) , char act erevi dence i s gener al l ynot admi s s i bl e “f

ort he purpos e of pr ovi ng act i on i n conform i t yther ew i t h on a part i cul ar o cc asio n . ” M u ll ins a tt em p ts t o rec h ara cterize the test im o n yas c h all en g ing S h ab az z’s cr edi bi l i t yand nothi s char act er . W e r ej ectthatchar act er i zat i on and conc l ude thatthe 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 in n o t a llo w in g th e in m a te s ’ t e s tim o n y . M o re o v e r, w e n o te th a t tw o o f th e in m a tes p led g u iltyto a ss a u lt ch a rg e s f ro m th e ir encount er s w i t h Shabazz . S im il arly , M u ll ins a rgu es th at th e D istri ct C o u rterred in n o t al low ing M u ll ins’s w i t nes s , L avond H i l l , t o t es t i fyas t o Shabazz ’ s r eput at i on. I n r es pons e t o a ques t i on fr om appel l ees ’ couns el as t o how he knew Shabazz , H i l l s t at ed thatShabazz had a ba d r eput at i on. M ul l i ns ’ s couns el ar gued thatappel l ees had opene d t he doort o evi dence of Shabazz ’ s r eput at i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notal l ow thatt es t i m ony . A gai n, M ul l i ns a rg u e s th a t h e s o u g h t to in tr o d u c e e v id e n c e o f S h a b a z z ’s re p u ta tio n a s to h is tru th f u ln e s s . A gai n, w e r ej ectt hatchar act er i zat i on of the pr opos ed t es t i m onyand conc l ude thatthe 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 in d e n y in g te s tim o n yo f S h a b a z z ’s re p u ta tio n . B ya sk in g H ill h o w h e k n e w S h a b a z z , ap p e llee s’ c o u n se l d id n o t “o p e n th e d o o r” to admi s s i on of s uch evi dence .5

F o r th e a b o v e re a so n s, a s w e ll as th o se se t f o rth b yth e D istric t C o u rt, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.