Opinion ID: 784093
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ranking Evidence

Text: 23 The district court consistently instructed the parties to focus on Williams and Wheeler, and not the other applicants. The primary issue was to be whether Williams or Wheeler was more qualified. Consistent with this theory of the case, the district court granted MHTC's motion in limine prohibiting Wheeler from introducing any evidence concerning the qualifications of other applicants, thereby limiting the proof as to the other applicants in order to prevent the jury from hearing evidence that was not relevant. Wheeler argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting testimony in violation of its previous order without allowing Wheeler to address the issue on rebuttal or correct the matter in a jury instruction. 3 24 Wheeler argues that this testimony violated the district court's in limine ruling and created a pregnant negative that there was someone ranked above Wheeler. Wheeler contends that this testimony contributed substantially to the jury's same decision verdict, as evidenced by the jury's question on this issue to the court during its deliberations. 4 25 MHTC argues that there was no abuse of discretion for three reasons. First, Wheeler was the first to bring up evidence of ranking by asking whether Barton recommended Wheeler as better qualified than Williams. Second, the testimony did not violate the district court's in limine order because MHTC asked Barton only about Wheeler and Williams. Third, the ranking evidence did not play a significant part in the same decision determination by the jury, because the evidence of Wheeler's bad demeanor during the interview was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. 26 At the hearing on the post-trial motions, the district court went into great detail with counsel as to why he felt there was no prejudicial error in his rulings. The district court found that the jury's findings on the same decision instruction were consistent with the Defendant's theory of the case. 5 27 Based upon the district court's explanation and the fact that Wheeler's counsel was given an opportunity to go further and to offer rebuttal evidence to show that Wheeler was more qualified than Mr. Watson, who was ranked number one, we find the district court committed no error. 28