Opinion ID: 624812
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wagner's testimony lacked foundation

Text: The majority also determines that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that Wagner lacked personal knowledge about Vogel's mental condition during the jailhouse dress-out procedure. However, the majority again fails to give any deference to the district court's decision. Federal Rule of Evidence 602 provides that a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness' own testimony. (emphasis added). The majority claims Wagner had adequate foundation, because she had personal knowledge of her conversation with Vogel and perceived his emotions. The majority claims Vogel's statements went to establish his state of mind at the time of the conversation. . . . Maj. Op. at 981. If Wagner's testimony were only offered to prove Vogel's temperament during his conversation with Wagner, the majority would be correct. However, Wagner intended to offer various opinions regarding Vogel's state of mind while in jail and why he reacted the way he did during the dress-out procedure. For example, Wagner, testified that (1) Vogel believed he was being raped, (2) Vogel believed the pink underwear was used to put him in [a] vulnerable position, (3) Vogel hid under his bed to protect himself because he was paranoid and felt he was in extreme harm's way, and (4) this was very, I'm sure, frightening for him. The Estate's entire theory of liability turns on the purportedly indelible trauma Vogel endured during his stay at the county jail. Thus, there is no doubt that Wagner offered this testimony to prove what Vogel felt and believed while he was in jailnot how he felt as he described the jailhouse incident a week later. To be sure, the County objected to Wagner's testimony, not because Wagner failed to establish that she actually had a conversation with Vogel, but because Wagner lacked foundation to testify about the thoughts and beliefs of her floridly psychotic brother during the jailhouse incident. For these reasons, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in excluding this testimony, in part, because of lack of foundation. Its determination was not illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.