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 12-2-2008 

# B oyd v . W i lmingt on P ol D ept 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 . 07-1731

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 " Bo yd v . W i lmin g t on P o l D ept " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 170. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/170The Honorable L ouis H. Poll ak, Senior District Judge f or the United States District * Court for the Ea stern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 1 NOT 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- 1731

_____________ KE NNE T H A. BO YD, A ppel l ant v. W I LM I NG TON POLI CE D EPARTM ENT; CI T Y OF WI L M I NGT ON

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 05- C V - 00178 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

O ct ober24, 2008 B e f o re : R E N D E L L a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges , a n d P OL L AK , D is tr i ct

Judge * ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber2, 2008) OP I NI ON2

S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . O n M ar ch 22, 2005, K enneth B oy d, an A fr i can- A m er i can pol i ce of fi cerw i t h the W i l m i ngt on Pol i ce D epart m ent , fi l ed a c i vi l act i on agai ns tthe C i t yof W i l m i ngt on ( “the C ity ” ) in th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e D istric t o f

D e law a re . B o y d b ro u g h t a T i t l e V I I r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m r el at i ng t o hi s fai l ur e t o be pr om ot ed t o t he r ank of s er geanti n t he W i l m i ngt on Pol i ce D epart m ent . O n O ct ober2, 2006, a tr i al comm ence d aft ert he compl et i on of the voi rdi r e and j urys el ect i on pr oces s . O n O ct ober4, 2006, t he j ur yr etur ned a una ni m ous ver di cti n favorof the C i t y , fi ndi ng thatthe C i t ydi d not di s cr i m i nat e aga i ns tB oy d w hen he w as notpr om ot ed t o t he r ank of s er geant . O n O ct ober 12, 2006, t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed a j udgm enti n favorof the C i t y ; and, on O ct ober26, 2 0 0 6 , B o y d fil ed a m o ti o n fo r a n ew tr ial p u rsua n t t o F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re ( “FR C P”) 59. B oy d as s er t ed tw o gr ounds fora new tr i al : ( 1) the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pr oces s for asse m b li n g a juryv en ir e v iolated th e Ju ryS elec ti o n an d S erv ice A ct of 1 9 6 8 (“the A ct”), 28 U . S. C . § 1861, ets eq. , beca us e i tr es ul t ed i n an under - r epr es ent at i on of A fr i canA m er i cans i n t he veni r e, w hi ch depr i ved B oy d of the r i ghtt o have a j urycompri s ed of a fai rcr os s - s ect i on of the comm uni t y ; and ( 2) the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s excl us i on of i m peac hm entevi dence on cr os s - exami nat i on pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Evi dence ( “FR E ”) 403 w as an abus e of di s cr et i on. O n J anuary16, 2007, the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed B oy d’ s m ot i on as t o t he fi r s tas s er t ed gr ound, and r es erved j udgm entforthe s econdW e do notneed t o r eac h t he j ur i s di ct i onal i s s ue of w hetherthe J anuary16, 2007 1 or derw as fi nal w i t hi n t he meani ng of 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and w as pr oper l ycert i fi ed p u rs u a n t to F R C P 5 4 (b ). See Cart erv. C i t y of P hi l a. , 181 F. 3d 339 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . E ven if th e M arc h 9 , 2 0 0 7 N o ti ce o f A p p ea l w as p rem ature , itri p en ed af ter th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s en tryo f ju d g m en t on the re m ainin g issue o n N o v em b er 1 , 2 0 0 7 . F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 (a)(4); s ee al s o Lazy O i lC o. v. W

i t co C or p. , 1 6 6 F . 3 d 5 8 1 , 5 8 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ).

3 g rou n d . O n F eb rua ry1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , B o y d fil ed a m o ti o n to ce rt ifythe D istri ct C o u rt ’s j udgm entpur s uantt o FR C P 54( b) , and the fol l ow i ng w eek, the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the C e rtific a tio n o f

Ju d g m e n t. O n M a rc h 9 , 2 0 0 7 , B o y d f iled a N o tice o f

A p p e a l p u rsu a n t to t he ce r t i fi ed j udgm ent . O n N ovember1, 2007, the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed B oy d’ s m ot i on fora new t r i al as t o t he s econd a s s er t ed gr ound, and B oy d s ubs equent l yfi l ed an A m ended N ot i ce of

A ppeal on N ovember27, 2007. T h e issu es o n ap p ea l are (1) w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rterred in d en y ing B o y d ’s m ot i on fora new t r i al on t he gr ound t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pr oces s foras s embl i ng a ju ryv e n ire v io late d th e A c t, an d (2 ) w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d en y ing B o y d ’s m o ti o n fo r a n ew tr ial o n the g rou n d that, d u ri n g tr ial , the D istri ct C o u rt im p ro p e rl ye x c lu d e d im p e a c h m e n t e v id e n c e o n c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n p u rs u a n t to F R E 4 0 3 . T he D i stri ctC ou rtexerci sed j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 33 1. W e exerci se j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 1 O u r st an d ard o f re v iew fo r th e f ir st i ssu e is p lena ryb ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s deni al of the mot i on fora new t r i al w as “bas ed upon the i nt erpr et at i on and appl i cat i on of a l egal pr ece pt . ” Kos hatka v. P hi l a. N ew s papers , I nc. , 7 6 2 F .2 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ).4

O u r s ta n d a rd o f

re v ie w f o r t h e s e c o n d is s u e is a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Li nk v. Mer cede s - B enz of N . A m er i ca, I

nc. , 7 8 8 F . 2 d 9 1 8 , 9 2 1

– 2 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) T he A ctunderw hi ch B oy d br i ngs hi s j urys el ect i on cl ai m has a s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons pr ovi s i on: I n c i v i l c a s e s , b e f

o r e t h e v o i rd i r e e x a m i n a t i o n b e g i n s , o rw i t h i n s e v e n d a ys aft ert he part ydi s cover ed orcoul d have di s cover ed, bythe exe r ci s e of d ili g e n c e , the g ro u n d s th e re o f , w h ich e v e r is e a rlier , an yp a rtym a ym o v e to s t ayt he pr ocee di ngs on t he gr ound of s ubs t ant i al fai l ur e t o compl yw i t h t he p r o v i s i o n s o f

t h i s t i t l e i n s e l e c t i n g th e p e t i tj u r y. 28 U . S. C . § 1867( c) . B oy d di d notr ai s e hi s j urys el ect i on cl ai m unt i l 21 day s aft erthe ver di ctand 14 day s aft ert he entr yof j udgm ent . H e ar gues thathe w as puton not i ce of t hi s i s s ue onl yaft erJ ur orN um ber5, w ho w as the l one A fr i can- A m er i can j ur or , cl ai m ed t hat the o t her j urors w ou l d n ot al l ow her t o p art i ci pate i n the del i berat i on process. Set t i ng as i de the fa ctt hatB oy d w as char ged w i t h br eaki ng D el aw ar e l aw by m i s us i ng t he W i l m i ngt on Pol i ce D epart m ent ’ s comput ers y s t ems t o t r ack dow n J ur or N u m b er 5 , B o y d ad m it s in h is briefing that h is co u n sel w as w ell aw are b ef o re v o ird ir e that the D istri ct C o u rt ’s j u ryselec ti o n p roc ed u res a ll eg ed lyresu ltin an u n d err epr es ent at i on of A fr i can- A m er i cans i n t he veni r e. O n J une 2, 2005, w hi ch w as 16 m ont hs pr i ort o B oy d’ s t r i al , B oy d’ s couns el r ai s ed thi s s ame j urys el ect i on i s s ue i n a d if f e re n t c a s e b e f

o re th e s a m e D is tr ic t C o u rt . Mi l l erv. Tow n of Mi l ton , C . A . N o. 03- 876 ( SL R ) . I n t he Mi l l er cas e, C hi ef J udge R obi ns on det erm i ned thatthi s obj ect i on l acke d m er i t . I n t he pr es entcas e, B oy d admi t s that“[i ] n l i ghtof C hi ef J udge R obi ns on’ s pr i or5

det erm i nat i on t hata cha l l enge t o t he j uryveni r e w as frui t l es s , B oy d’ s couns el di d not c h a l l e n g e t h e v e n i r e i n t h e B o yd ju ry se le c tio n p ro c e s s .” B ri e f o f A p p e lla n t a t 1 1 . B oy d’ s fai l ur e t o r ai s e thi s cl ai m atthe t i m e of voi rdi r e i s fat al t o hi s cl ai m pur s uantt o § 1 8 6 7 (c ); a s a re su lt, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt. B o y d ’s e v id e n tiary cla im is b a se d o n th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n n o t to al l ow B oy d’s coun sel t o cross- exam i ne L i eutenant M i t chell R ock , a def ense w i t ness, re g a rd in g L t. R o c k ’s a lleg e d u se o f ra c ial s lu rs. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n uphol di ng t he rul i ng thatthi s evi dence w as pr oper l yexcl uded underFR E 403. T he evi dence had l i t t l e t o no pr obat i ve val ue bec aus e Lt . R ock had a b so lu telyn o ro le in th e W ilm in g to n P o lice D e p a rtm e n t’s p ro m o tio n p ro c e ss a n d L t. R ock w as neveri n a s upervi s or ypos i t i on t o B oy d; fur t herm or e, the evi dence w oul d have b e e n h ig h ly p re

ju d ic ia l a n d c o n f

u s in g . See Figur es v. B d. of P ub. Ut i l . of

the C i t y of Kan. C i t y, Kan. , 9 6 7 F . 2 d 3 5 7 , 3 6 0

– 6 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). F o r th e re a so n s s tate d a b o v e , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.