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 5-28-2008 

# V ic t or y Outr e a ch C tr v

. M el so P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-1927

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " V ict or y Outr e a ch C tr v

. M e l s o " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1125. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1125Hon. J os e ph E. I r e na s , Judge , Uni t e d St at e s Di s tr i c t Court for the Di s tr i c t

of * Ne w J e r s e y , s i tt i ng by

de s i gnat i on. 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- 1927

__________ VI CTO RY OU TREA CH CEN TER a n d C. STEP HEN W HI TE,

Ap p e lla n ts , vs. S ERGE ANT J OSE P H M EL S O, OFF I CER J ASON P ARKER, O FFI CE R JAM ES C U LLE N , O FFI CE R E RI C FR ED RI CK SD O RF,

a n d S T . J OS E P H’ S UNI VE RS I T Y,

Appel l ees .

__________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D ist ri ct C o u rt F o r th e E a ste r D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( N o. 00- C V - 5185) D i s t r i ct J udge: H onor abl e Pet r es e B . T ucker

___________ Subm i t t ed on M ay16, 2008

___________ B e f o re : M C K E E , G A R T H , C i r cui t Judges , and I R E N A S, D i s t r i ct J udge. * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ay28, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________-2-

G A R T H , C i r cui tJudge : Vict ory Ou tr ea ch Center

and C . Ste ph en Whit e ( “Pl ai nt i ffs ” or “A ppel l ant s ”) app eal from t he D i st ri ct C ou rt ’s fi nal or der of F ebruary28 , 20 07 , dis m i ssi ng P l ai nti ffs’ m ot i on for a new t r i al and mot i on t o ext end t i m e bas ed on a f ai l ur e t o or der a t r i al t r ans cr i pt as r equi r ed underL ocal R ul e 7. 1( e) of t he D i s t r i ct C our t for t he East er n D i s t r i ct of Penns y l vani a. A ppel l ant s chal l enge t he s uffi c i e nc y of e vi de nc e , twe nty - thr e e of the D istrict C o u rt’s j u ry

in stru ctio n s, ex clu sio no f ev id en ce, an du se o f

lead in g qu estio n s. F o r t h e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we a f f i r m.

I. O nO cto b er 1 2 , 2 0 0 0 , p lain tif f s V icto ry O u treach C en ter an dC . S tep h en Wh ite ( “ Pl a i nt i ffs ” ) fi l e d ac om

pl a i nt a ga i ns t s e ve r a l Phi l a de l phi apol i c e offi c e r s – Se r ge ant Jose ph Mels o, Of

fice r J as on Parker , Off

ic er Jam es Cu ll en, Off

ic er Eric Fredri cksdorf (P o lice D ef

en d an ts”) –th e C ity

o f P h ilad elp h ia (“C ity”), an dS t. Jo sep h ’s U n iv ersity ( “ SJU” ) . The c om

pl a i nt a l l e ge d that

W hi t e wa s arr e s t e d for

pr e a c hi ng r e l i gi ous m essag es o nth ree o ccasio n s inv io latio no f h is rig h ts u n d er th e F irst an dF o u rth A m en d m en ts. Th e fir st inci dent occurre d o n July 24 , 199 9 at a

“Gre ek Picnic ,” du ri ng wh ic h th o u san d s o f

m em b ers o f f ratern ities an dso ro rities assem b le inP h ilad elp h ia ev ery Ju ly . At nigh t, the c olle ge st

ud ents gather ed on So uth S tr ee t, such that they were “l um

ped-3-

t oge the r l i ke c att l e ” ove r

afourt e e n- bl oc k s pan. A- R at 117. To m a i nt a i n s e c ur i ty and public order, ther e was a s ignificant po li ce pres ence as si gn ed to this ar ea . Lat e that evening, Whit e s toodon the s idewal k o n S ou th Stre et and carr ie d a five-foo t banner, w h ich p ro claim ed : “F o rn icato rs an dD ru n k ard s w ill Jo inT up ac in H ell. O b ey Jesu s. 1 st C o rin th ian s 6 :9 .” B ecau se Wh ite w as b lo ck in g th e sid ew alkan dcau sin g a cro w dto gather ar ou ndhim

du e t o h is sl og ans andshou ti ng , Off ic er Parker told him to keep m ovi ng l i ke the r e s t

of the c r owd. Aft e r

W hi t e i gnor e d the pol i c e offi c e r ’ s r e que s t , he was arr es te d andis sued a c it at ion f or disorder ly

conduct. Whit e r ec ei ved a heari ng that nigh t, was fou ndgu il ty , andre le as ed. White appeal ed the c on vict ion andthe c harges we r e e ve nt

ua l l y di s m i s s e d. T h e seco n din cid en t o ccu rredth e f o llo w in g y ear o nth e n ig h t o f Ju ly 9 , 2 0 0 0 , also du rin g a G reekP icn ic, at aro u n d1 2 :3 0 am . In a p art o f P h ilad elp h ia w h ere f

if teen to tw en ty th o u san dstu d en ts h adg ath ered , Wh ite ag ain sto o do na sid ew alkan db eg an to prea ch and y el l var ious sl og ans. Ab ou t 70 p eople had as se m bled in fron t of White , w h ich im p ed edp ed estrian traf

f ic. S erg ean t M elso ask edWh ite to leav e ap p ro x im ately fi ve t i m e s but

wi thout s uc c e s s . Pe r c e i vi ng ar i s k t o publ i c s a fe ty due t o an e s c a l at i ng an im o sity b etw een Wh ite an dth e cro w d , M elso arrestedWh ite, w h o w as sub sequ en tly conv ic te d o f a summ ar

y of fense and rel ea se d. On appeal , the charges agai nst White were di s m i s s e d due t o Me l s o’ s fa i l ur e t o a ppe ar at W hi t e ’ s tr i a l , a

ppar e nt l y be c aus e he di d not r e c e i ve not i c e of the he ar i ng.-4-

Th e third inci dent tookplac e on M ar ch 15 , 200 1 in the afte rnoo n at St. Jose ph ’s Uni ve r s i ty . W hi t e ’ s pr e a c hi ng, whi c h i nc l ude d l oud s c r e am i ng and y e l l i ng, a s s e m bl e d a c r owd of twe nty

t o twe nty - fi ve pe opl e ar ound hi m . The gathe r e d c r owd bl oc ke d the si dewalk and students began walking into traffic. Of fice r Fre deri cksdorf, wh o arr ived at the s c e ne , s ugge s t e d t o W hi t e that he m ove t o an a dja c e nt

parki ng l ot

whe r e the r e wa s no p ro b lem w ith h eav y

traf f ic. S in ce Wh ite ref

u sedto m o v e af

ter sev eral requ ests, F red erick sd o rf

arrestedh im

o nch arg es o f

b lo ck in g o r o b stru ctin g a h ig h w ay o r p ub lic pa s s a ge way

and i s s ue d hi m

as umm ary

c i t at i on. At

W hi t e ’ s s ubs e que nt

he ar i ng, the c har ge s a ga i ns t

hi m we r e di s m i s s e d due t o Fr e de r i c ks dor f’ s fa i l ur e t o a ppe ar at the h earin g , ap p aren tly

b ecau se h e d idn o t receiv e n o tice o f it. On October 10, 20 01 , Pla inti ff s fil ed an am ended com

plai nt, which the Polic e Defend ants and the City

answer ed. On July

16 , 200 3, Plai ntiffs soug ht le ave t o f il e a s e c ond am e nde d c om

pl a i nt , whi c h the Di s tr i c t Court de ni e d. On Se pt e m

be r 8, 2003, Plai ntiffs m ov ed fo r s umm ar y ju dg m ent; the Polic e Defendants and the City re spon ded and cross -m ov ed fo r s umm ar y ju dg m ent on O ct ob er

6, 20 03 . The Dist

ri ct Co urt granted su mm ary j u d g m en t to th e C ity

o nM arch 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 an dd ism issedth e C ity f ro m th e case fo r fai lure of

the Pla inti ff

s t o est abli sh independ ent m un ic ipal li abil it

y , but denied su mm ary j u d g m en t to P lain tif

f s an dth e P o lice D ef

en d an ts. A jury tr i a l c omm e nc e d on Nove m be r 7, 2006 and fi ni s he d on Nove m be r 16, 20 06 . On the fo urth day

of tr ia l, the Dis tr ic t Cou rt

grante d S JU’s m otion f

or dire ct ed-5-

v erd ict p u rsu an t to F ed eral Ru le o f C iv il P ro cedu re 5 0 an dd ism issedS JU f ro m th e case. The Di s tr i c t

Court a l s o di s m i s s e d Pl a i nt i ffs ’ c l a i m of m a l i c i ous pr os e c ut i on a ga i ns t the Pol i c e De fe ndant s , but

de ni e d the r e m a i nde r

of the i r Rul e 50 m ot i on i n favor

of s e ndi ng the c a s e t o the jury . Aft e r thr e e hour s of de l i be r at i on, the jury r e t urne d ave r di c t

i n favor o f all P o lice D ef

en d an ts. O nD ecem

b er 7 , 2 0 0 6 , P lain tif

f s f ileda m o tio nf

o r n ew trial an dS JU m o v edto s tr i ke the m ot i on ba s e d on Pl a i nt i ffs ’ fa i l ur e t o or de r atr i a l tr ans c r i pt . Pur s uant t o L ocal R u le 7 .1 (e ) o f

th e D istric t 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 , the Distri ct Court gr ant e d SJU’ s m ot i on on Fe br uary 28, 2007. Pl a i nt i ffs fi l e d at i m e l y not i c e of a ppe a l on Mar c h 27, 2007.

II. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , w h ich p ro v id e s a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on fr om al l fi nal deci s i ons of U . S. di s t r i ctcour t s . T he di s t r i ct cour t had s ubj ect m at t er j ur i s di ct i on pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 1331, w hi ch conf er s j ur i s di ct i on over fede r al qu est i on s. W e re v iew a m o ti o n fo r a n ew tr ial fo r “‘ab u se o f d iscreti o n u n less the c o u rt ’s d e n ial o f th e m o tio n is b a se d o n a p p lica tio n o f a leg a l p re c e p t, i n w h ich c a se o u r re v iew is pl enar y . ’ ” Cu rley

v. Klem , 499 F. 3d 199, 206 ( 3d Ci r . 2007) ( quot i ng Ho neywel l, Inc. v. Am er ic an Stan da rds Tes ti ng Bu re au , I

nc. , 851 F.2d65 2, 65 5 (3dCir. 19 88 )) . W e r evie w-6-

jury i ns tr uc t i ons for

abus e of di s c r e t i on t o de t e rm i ne whe the r the y ar e m i s l e a di ng or in ad equ ate, th o u g h w e ex ercise p len ary rev iew o v er w h eth er j u ry in stru ctio n s, readas a w h o le, m isstate th e law . W oods on v . Sc ot t

Pape r Co ., 1 0 9 F .3 d9 1 3 , 9 2 9 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 6 ). A di s tr i c t c ourt ’ s r e fus a l t o us e apr opos e d jury i ns tr uc t i on i s r e vi e we d for

abus e of d iscretio n . Uni te d States v . Khoroz i an , 3 3 3 F . 3 d4 9 8 , 5 0 7 - 0 8 ( 3 dC i r . 2 0 0 3 ) . S i m i l ar l y, d ecisio n s to ad m it o r ex clu d e ev id en ce are rev iew edf o r ab u se o f

d iscretio n . Stec

yk v. Bell Heli copter

Text ron, Inc. , 295 F. 3d 408, 412 ( 3d Ci r . 2002) . W e a l s o r e vi e w for ab u se o f d iscretio na trial co u rt’s d ecisio nreg ard in g th e u se o f lead in g qu estio n s. G o vern m en t o

f V irg in Isla n d

s v. B ra th w a ite , 78 2 F . 2d39 9, 40 6 ( 3dCi r . 19 86 ) . “ To d em o n strate an ab u se o f

d iscretio n , inco n n ectio nw ith an ev id en tiary ru lin g , a p arty

m u st sh o w th at th e D istrict C o u rt’s d ecisio nw as arb itrary , f an cif u l o r clearly

u n reaso n ab le.” Mo ye r v . Unite d D om inion Industr ies, Inc. , 473 F.3d53 2, 54 2 (3dCir. 20 07 ) ( inte rnal qu otat ion m ar

ks om itte d). I f aparty fa i l s t o a de quat e l y

obje c t t o ajury i ns tr uc t i on, we r e vi e w for

pl a i n e rr or in stru ctio n s af

f ectin g sub stan tial rig h ts. Fran kl in Pres cr ipti on s, Inc. v. New Y ork Times Co. , 4 2 4 F .3 d3 3 6 , 3 3 9 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h u s, w e w ill rev erse a trial co u rt’s ru lin g s o n ly whe r e apl a i n e rr or

wa s “ fundam e nt a l and hi ghl y pr e judi c i a l , s uc h that

the i ns tr uc t i ons fa i l e d t o pr ovi de the jury

wi th a de quat e gui danc e and our r e fus a l t o c ons i de r

the i s s ue wo uld res ult i n a m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e. ” Id. at

341. W e have pl e nary

r e vi e w ove r

adi s tr i c t c ourt ’ s gr ant

of judgm e nt

a s am att e r

ofLo ca l Rule 7.1(e ) provides: “W it hin f ou rt ee n (14 ) day s a fter

fili ng any

po st -tri al 1 m o tio n , th e m o v an t sh all eith er (a) o rd er a tran scrip t o f th e trial b y

a w ritin g d eliv eredto the Court Re port e r Supe rvi s or , or

( b) fi l e ave r i fi e d m ot i on s howi ng good c aus e t o be excuse d f rom this re qu ir em ent. Un le ss a transcr ipt i s thu s order ed, or the m ov ant e xcused fr om or de r i ng atr ans c r i pt , the pos t - tr i a l m ot i on m ay be di s m i s s e d for

l a c k of p ro secu tio n .” -7- law p ursuant t o F eder al Ru le of Civil Proce du re 50 . “ [A ] d ir ec te d v er dict is m andate d wh er e the fact s andlaw w il l r ea sonably supp ort only

on e c on cl usion.” M

cD erm o tt In t’l., Inc. V. Wi lander , 498 U.S. 33 7, 35 6 (19 91 ).

III. Ap pell ants ra is e num er ou s i ss ues with res pect to the s uf

fici ency of evidence, twe nty - thr e e of the Di s tr i c t Court ’ s jury

i ns tr uc t i ons , e xc l us i on of e vi de nc e , and us e of lead in g qu estio n s. Since the Distri ct

Co urt properl y

dism is se d White ’s m otion f or a new tr ia l for la ck of pr os e c ut i on pur s uant

t o Loc a l Rul e 7. 1( e ) , Appe l l ant s ’ ar gum e nt s r e gar di ng 1 su f f icien cy o f ev id en ce w ere w aiv edb y p ro cedu ral d ef

au lt. H ew lett v. D a vis , 844 F. 2d 10 9, 11 5, n.3 (3dCir. 19 88 ). Wi th re spec t t o A pp el lants’ chal le ng es to the jury inst ruct ions, a ll exce pt thre e of these is sues were waived by the Pla inti ff

s bec ause they w ere n o t “p ro p erly

raisedan dp reserv edat th e trial lev el.” I d. Unde r Fe de r a l Rul e of Civil Proce du re 51 (c )( 1), a “party wh o o bj ec ts to an instruct ion o r the fail ure t o g ive an i ns tr uc t i on m us t do s o on the r e c or d, s t at i ng dist inct ly the m att e r obje c t e d t o and the gr ounds for

the obje c t i on. ” ( e m

pha s i s a dde d) . Though W hi t e r a i s e d age ne r a l obje c t i on-8-

to the c ou rt ’s ju ry

inst ruct ions and p ropo se d alt er nati ve instruct ions, s uch act s wer e in su f f icien t to p reserv e o nap p eal all p o ten tial ch allen g es to th e in stru ctio n s. S ee, e.g ., Col l i ns v . Alc o Par

k i ng Cor p. , 448 F. 3d 652, 656 ( 3d Ci r . 2006) ( “ [M]e r e l y pr opos i ng a ju ry inst ruct ion that differs from

the c harge given is insuff ic ie nt to pres er

ve an o b j ectio n .”); Ale

x ande r v . Ri ga , 208 F.3d41 9, 42 6 (3dCir. 20 00 ). Th e r em ai ning is sues pres er ved o n app ea l r el at e t o the Distri ct Co urt’ s inst ruct ions re garding F ir st

Am endm ent l aw, i n p arti cular the is sue of the so-c al le d

“ he c kl e r ’ s ve t o, ” s t at

us of the s i de wa l k a s apubl i c for um , and c har ge on puni t i ve d am ag es. B asedo na co m p reh en siv e rev iew o f

th e reco rd , w e f

in dn o rev ersib le erro r in the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s ruli ng s on these m atte rs . Sim il ar ly , we find n o err or in the Dis tr ic t C o u rt’s Ru le 5 0 d irectedv erd ict inf av o r o f S JU . T u rn in g to A p p ellan ts’ ch allen g es to the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s e xc l us i on of c e rt a i n e vi de nc e and i t s handl i ng of a l l e ge dl y l e a di ng que s t i ons , we fi nd that

the Di s tr i c t

Court di d not abus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n r

ul i ng a ga i ns t

the P lain tif f s. IV . For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e af fi r m t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or der of Febr uar y 28, 2007.

__________________