Opinion ID: 3064167
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of Impeachment Evidence

Text: In response to cross-examination at trial, Officer Griffin testified that Officer Cross was not an “over-aggressive guy,” as follows: I don’t know if [Officer Cross] physically pulled [Edwards] from the car. [Cross] might have politely—[Cross] wasn’t an over-aggressive guy. I mean, he looked intimidating but he wasn’t the kind of guy that would force his will and authority on another person. I never saw him do that at the time that I worked with him. Edwards later requested to use several internal affairs complaints against Officer Cross to impeach Officer Griffin’s testimony about Officer Cross. The district court denied Edwards’s request, finding the probative value of the internal affairs reports was outweighed by their prejudicial impact.4 The determination of whether the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 “lies within the sound discretion of the district judge.”5 United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1282 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Edwards conceded that the complaints of Officer Cross’s alleged aggression were unsubstantiated and that Officer Griffin had responded to, and 4 Officer Cross was killed in the line of duty a few months after Edwards’s arrest. 5 The district court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Matthews, 431 F.3d 1296, 1311 (11th Cir. 2005). 9 denied, one of the excessive force complaints against Officer Cross. Thus, the internal affairs reports had little probative value as to whether Officer Griffin was lying about never witnessing Officer Cross acting overly aggressive or about Officer Cross not being an “over-aggressive guy” in general. See United States v. Taylor, 417 F.3d 1176, 1178-80 (11th Cir. 2005) (affirming exclusion of use of unfounded citizen’s complaints against a police officer on cross-examination). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding use of the internal affairs reports.6