2009 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 8-26-2009 

# C h arles M elt on v

. C ity of 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 . 08-3052

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " C h arle s M elt on v

. C ity of P hi l a delp hi a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 777. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/777NOT 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. 08- 3052

___________ CH AR L E S J . M E L T ON, A ppel l ant

v. C I T Y O F PH I L A D E L PH I A ; M I C H A E L M U R PH Y , O ffi cer , B adge N um ber1531; D I C K I E H U D E C K I , O ffi cer , B adge N um ber21- 43, I ndi vi dual l yand as Pol i ce Dep a r t me n t ; M OTO RO LA C OR P; ED LA ND ER, M r . Ow n e r , Off i c e o f th e CEO

___________ 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. 2: 05- cv- 00366) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Eduar do C . R obr eno

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

A ugus t24, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t26, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM C har l es J . M el t on appea l s pr o s e fr om the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our t , ent er i ng a ju ryv e rd ict a g a in st h im . F o r th e f o llo w in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t.A ppar ent l y , M el t on r eac hed outof hi s carw i ndow , caughthol d of a w om an, and 1 began dr i vi ng i n r ever s e. O ffi cerM urphyi nt ervened a nd punched M el t on i n the fa ce, i njur i ng him . B ased up on these ev ents , M el t on w as conv i ct ed o f si m ple as saul t , reckl ess e n d a n g e rm e n t, a n d p o s s e s s io n o f a n in s tru m e n t o f

c ri m e . I n a footnot e, the D i s tr i ctC our ts t at ed thatM el t on agr eed t o di s m i s s al of al l butt he 2 Four th A m endmentcl ai m . O n appea l , M el t on does notdi s put e the di s m i s s al of the other cl ai m s. 2 I . B ackgr ound I n e a r l y2 0 0 5 , M e l t o n i n i t i a t e d a p r o s e c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 3 in th e U n ite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u rt f o r t h e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f P e n n s y lv a n ia . M el t on cl ai m ed t o have s uffe r ed cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons dur i ng a M ar ch 2003 phy s i cal al t er cat i on thatul t i m at el yl ed t o hi s arr es tand convi ct i on. Speci fi cal l y , M el t on cl ai m ed 1 th a t O f f ice r M ich a e l M u rp h yu se d e x c e ss iv e f o rc e d u rin g th e c o u rse o f M e lto n ’s a rre st, in vi ol at i on of the Four th A m endment . I n addi t i on, M el t on r ai s ed var i ous cl ai m s agai ns tt he C ityo f P h ilad e lp h ia, O f

f ice r M u rp h y ’s p a rtn e r, O f f ice r S c o tt H u d e c k i, M o to ro la C o rp o ra tio n , a n d M o to ro la ’s C E O , E d w a rd Z a n d e r. In 2 0 0 5 , the D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d M e lto n ’s c laim s a g a in st Z a n d e r f o r f a ilu re to s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed. I n O ct ober2007, aft era l engthyper i od o n th e s u s p e n s e d o c k e t, th e D is tr ic t C o u rt o rd e re d th e c a s e to re tu rn to th e a c tiv e d o c k e t. M el t on then ret ai ned pri vate coun sel . M el t on vo l un t ari l ydis m i ssed hi s cl ai m s agai nst M o toro la an d the C ityo f P h il ad elph ia, an d o n A p ri l 23 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istri ct C o u rt di s m i s s ed al l r emai ni ng cl ai m s exce ptM el t on’ s Four th A m endmentcl ai m thatD efe ndant M u rp h ye mp l o y e d e x c e s s i v e f o r c e a g a i n s th i m. 2M el t on fi l ed seve ral po st -tri al m oti on s i n the D i stri ctC ou rt : for a new tri al , t o ex cuse 3 the fi l i ng of a tr ans cr i pt , t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s , and forthe appoi nt m entof couns el . O n J ul y24, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the pos t - tr i al m ot i ons w i thout pr ej udi ce. 3 Shor t l ybefor e tr i al , M el t on m oved forw i thdr aw al of hi s couns el , ar gui ng thathe w as r ece i vi ng i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the r eques t . I n J ul y2008, M elt o n ’s F o u rth A m en d m en t cl aim p roc ee d ed to a ju rytr ial . P u rsua n t t o the ju ry ’s ver di ct , on J ul y10, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed j udgm enti n favorof O ffi cerM urphy and aga i ns tM el t on. Pr ocee di ng pr o s e, M el t on fi l ed the i ns t antappea l . W e have 3 j ur i s di ct i on overthe appe al pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. II. A n a ly sis A . M el t on fi r s tcl ai m s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , ar gui ng thathi s r et ai ned couns el fai l ed t o pr es entt o t he D i s tr i ctC our tthe t es t i m onyof ce r t ai n nece s s aryfac tand expertw i tnes s es . Speci fi cal l y , M el t on ar gues thathe w i s hed t o pr es enta “c i vi l i an w i tnes s ” w ho “w as goi ng t o gi ve contr a[di c] t orys t at ementand i ntr oduce e vi dence [ c o n tra ryto ] th a t o f

o f f ice r M u rp h y ’s e t al.” M e lto n c o n ten d s th a t co u n se l f a iled to i nt ervi ew ors ubpoena thi s unnamed i ndi vi dual , and compl ai ns of a “ l ack of pr os ecut i on. ” I n addi t i on, M el t on appende d t o hi s br i ef a s etof pr i nt ed emai l s , appar ent l yr efl ect i ng a di s put e w i th hi s couns el aboutw hetherM el t on s houl d be r equi r ed t o bearthe expe ns e of e x p e rt w itn e ss f

e e s. W e p re su m e th a t, as a re su lt o f th is d isp u te, th e e x p e rt w itn e ss e s d idT he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noti s s ue a w r i t t en or derconce rni ng the exc l us i on of any 4 p ro p o s e d w itn e s s e s . 4 n o t te s tif yo n M e lto n ’s b e h a lf

a t tr ia l. M el t on’ s cl ai m s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el do notpr ovi de gr ounds for di s turbi ng the j ury ’ s ver di ct . T her e i s no r i ghtt o the ef fec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n a c iv il c a s e . K u s h n e r v . W in te rt h u r S w is s In s . C o ., 6 2 0 F .2 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). B. M e l t o n n e x ta r g u e s th a tth e Di s tr i c tCo u r t“ [ d ] i d n ’ tl e tmywi tn e s s e s t e s t i f y , o n my behal f t o the j ury . ” Li ber al l ycons trui ng hi s pl eadi ng, s ee D l uhos v. St r as ber g, 321 F. 3d 365, 369 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , w e conc l ude thatM el t on has r ai s ed a c l ai m thatthe D i s tr i ct C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n b yw ro n g f u llye x c lu d in g w itn e ss e s f ro m tes tify in g o n h is behal f. See R enda v. K i ng, 347 F. 3d 550, 553 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( rul i ngs t o admi torexcl ude e v id e n c e a re re v ie w e d f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n ). T h is a p p e a rs to b e th e f irst tim e M e lto n h a s ra ise d su c h a c laim . G e n e ra lly , o n ly ar gum ent s m ade f

i r s tt o t he D i s tr i ctC our tm aybe hea r d on appea l . See Fl i ck v. B or g- W arnerC orp. , 892 F. 2d 285, 288 ( 3d C i r . 1990) . M or eover , M el t on does not i dent i fyw hi ch w i tnes s es w er e i m pr oper l yexcl uded, w hats ubs t ant i ve t es t i m onythe w itn e ss e s w o u ld h a v e p ro v id e d , o r h o w h e su f f e re d a n yp re

ju d ice a s a re su lt o f

th e ir excl us i on. M el t on has nots etfor th the D i s tr i ctC our trul i ng he di s put es , and no s uch rul i ng appea r s i n t he r ecor d. A ppel l ees ar gue thatM el t on’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de the 4W e re c o g n ize th a t M e lto n ’s f a ilu re to p ro v id e a c o p yo f th e tra n sc rip t is in p a rt d u e to 5 o u r d e n ia l o f

h is re q u e s t f

o r p ro v is io n o f

th e tr a n s c ri p ts a t th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s e x p e n s e . H o w e v e r, w e d e c lin e d h is re q u e st b e c a u se h e d id n o t d e m o n stra te th a t th e a p p e a l p re se n ts a s ubs t ant i al ques t i on. See 28 U . S. C . § 753( f) . A l though w e af for ded hi m the oppor tuni tyt o do s o, M el t on has notr emedi ed thi s s hor t comi ng. 5 tr an script pre v en ts m ea n ing fu l r ev iew o f h is cl aim . S ee F ed . R . A p p . P . 1 0 (b); T h ir d C irc u it L .A .R . 1 1 .1 ; se e a lso F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 (a )(2 ) (f a ilu re to a b id e b yth e a p p e llate rul es perm i t s “the courtof appe al s t o actas i tcons i der s appr opr i at e, ” i ncl udi ng di s m i s s al ) . W e agr ee. T he vague s t at ement s i n M el t on’ s br i efs ar e i ns uffi ci ent . W e l ack 5 anybas i s t o concl ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on. C. N e x t, M e lto n a rg u e s th a t h e w a s d e n ied a f a ir trial b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t perm ith im to p rese n t evid en ce o f p ri o r po li ce d ep artm en t i n terna l aff airs in v e s tig a tio n s c o n c e rn in g D e f e n d a n t M u rp h y . D ur i ng the tr i al pr ocee di ngs , D efe ndantM urphyfi l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne, s eeki ng t o excl ude s uch evi dence as i r r el evantand undul ypr ej udi ci al . I n a mem or andum and or derent er ed on J ul y10, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on pur s uantt o Feder al R ul es of Evi dence 404( b) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatM el t on fai l ed t o s how t hat evi dence of pr i ori nves t i gat i ons w oul d be r el evantforanyval i d purpos e r el at i ng t o the i s s ue of w hetherM urphyempl oy ed exc es s i ve for ce dur i ng M el t on’ s arr es t . W e r evi ew the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s evident i aryrul i ng for abu se of d i scr et i on . U nit ed S t at es v. W i l l i am s, 4 5 8 F . 3 d 3 1 2 , 3 1 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).6

Foradmi s s i on underR ul e 404( b) , the evi dence m us tbe r el evantand i t s pr obat i ve val ue mustoutw ei gh i t s pot ent i al forunfai rpr ej udi ce. See U ni t ed St at es v. C ruz, 326 F. 3d 392, 395 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng H uddl es t on v. U ni t ed St at es , 485 U . S. 681, 691- 92 ( 1988) ) . M el t on ar gues onl ythat“I w anti tt o be i ncl uded notexcl uded. ” W e per cei ve no err ori n the conc l us i on thatevi dence of pr i orm i s conductw as notr el evantt o orpr obat i ve of the i s s ue attr i al . M el t on offe r s nothi ng t o per s uade us thatthe dec i s i on t o excl ude the e v id e n c e w a s a rb itrar yo r irra tio n a l. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng the mot i on i n l i m i ne. D . M el t on nextcont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti m pr oper l yadmi t t ed hea r s ay evidence, w hich M el t on w ou l d “li ke . . . excluded . ” W hetherevidence is hearsayi s a ques t i on of l aw s ubj ectt o pl enaryr evi ew . See U ni t ed St at es v. Sal l i ns , 993 F. 3d 344, 346 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). M el t on has notdes cr i bed the al l eged he ar s ayevi dence orthe di s put ed D i s tr i ct C our trul i ng, and, as pr evi ous l ydi s cus s ed, has fai l ed t o pr ovi de the tr ans cr i ptas r equi r ed b yF e d e ra l R u les o f

A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 1 0 (b ) a n d T h ird C irc u it L o c a l A p p e llate R u le 11. 1. I n addi t i on, M el t on’ s br i ef gi ves s uch cur s orytr eatm entt o thi s cl ai m thatw e ca nnot di s c e rn h i s “ c on t e nt i on s a nd the r e a s on s fo rthe m” a s r e qu i r e d b yFe d. R. A pp . P. 28 ( a ) ( 9) . Se e N a gl e v. A l s pa c h, 8 F. 3d 14 1, 14 3 ( 3d Ci r . 19 93 ) ; s e e a l s o Fe d. R. A pp . P. 3( a) ( 2) . I n s um , M el t on has fai l ed t o pr ovi de anybas i s fordi s turbi ng the j uryver di ctand7

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. E . Fi nal l y , M el t on has s ubm i t t ed a mot i on s eeki ng t o s t ayhi s appea l pendi ng a deci s i on i n hi s Penns y l vani a s t at e courtpos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs . H ow ever , the out come of t he pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs i s notr el evantt o the i s s ues M el t on has r ai s ed o n a p p e a l. W e th e re f

o re d e n yM e lto n ’s s tay m o tio n . In a d d iti o n , M e lto n h a s re n e w e d h is re q u e s ts f

o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l a n d f

o r t ra n s c ri p ts . W e a g a in d e n yth e re q u e s ts . A ppel l ees M urphy , H udecki , and the C i tyof Phi l adel phi a have m oved t o s tr i ke the document s appende d t o M el t on’ s r epl ybr i ef, w hi ch theydes cr i be as a s uppl ement al appendi x. T he mot i on t o s tr i ke i s gr ant ed. I I I . C oncl us i on F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, 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.