Opinion ID: 778007
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Carnabuci's List

Text: 38 Second, the Commission contests the admission into evidence of a document entitled 1993-1994 Application List. Sam Carnabuci, a former member of the Commission's Personnel Committee, testified at trial as to this document. It contains the names of both entry-level and promotion applicants, the date of application, and the source for each name. The source, the means by which the applicant made known his application to the Commission, was either a person's name or U.S. Mail. Many of the names listed as sources were state senators, state representatives, or their aides (including Holman). Some of the names contained notations, including the notation wants promotion. Carnabuci testified that this notation meant that the listed person wanted a promotion within the Commission. 39 The Commission objected to the list because it is overwhelmingly concerning hires rather than promotions, i.e., because it was highly prejudicial and only slightly probative. The Commission argues that the list is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial because Carnabuci's list contains three to four references to persons seeking promotions out of hundreds of entries over nine pages. Commission's Br. at 40. Because hiring actions at the Commission, unlike promotions, are allowed to involve referrals from legislators and other politicians, the Commission argues that the admission of the entire list created a strong and harmful (but unsubstantiated) impression that political considerations were routinely used in personnel matters at the Commission. Id. 40 Although not explicitly, the Commission contends that the Magistrate Judge abused his discretion when he erroneously admitted the list. It presents this argument under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which provides: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. The Commission claims that the unfair prejudicial effect of the list substantially outweighs its probative value. 41 The list certainly contains relevant evidence, i.e., the names of Commission employees seeking promotions and a political source for their application. The Commission concedes this much when it argues that the Magistrate Judge should have admitted the list with all information redacted except those individuals noted as wants promotion. Commission Br. at 40-41. Additionally, in his deposition of Carnabuci, Goodman's attorney asked Carnabuci about the fact that one of the names on the list — Frank Syzdek — did not have wants a promotion next to his name but was in fact someone who wanted and received a promotion, according to the testimony of Senator Rhoades. Carnabuci stated that, although it was his normal practice to write wants promotion next to the name of someone who wanted a promotion, he could not explain why that was not done with Syzdek's name. This testimony cast doubt on the assertion that only those names with wants promotion next to them were promotion candidates, making plausible the inference that throughout the list there were possible promotion candidates. 42 More importantly, even though the list was dated one or two years before the material events in this case occurred, it was relevant because it showed the existence of political influence on promotions after the Rutan decision and the adoption of Policy Letter 65. Furthermore, Carnabuci was on the Personnel Committee at the time he had the list, which shows specifically that there was political influence on Personnel Committee decisions after Rutan. 43 Given the relevance and probative value of the list, the Magistrate Judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting it into evidence. We therefore affirm his evidentiary ruling, and will later consider this substantive evidence in the Rule 50 analysis.