Opinion ID: 777337
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prejudicial Jury Instruction

Text: 28 USWA argues one of the district court's instructions to the jury effectively instructed the jury that USWA had improperly imposed the trusteeship. Further, the instruction asked the jury to consider evidence which was not relevant to the issues at trial. We review jury instructions as a whole to determine if they adequately inform the jury of the relevant considerations and provide a basis in law for aiding the jury in reaching its decision. Jones v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 800 F.2d 590, 592 (6th Cir.1986). We will reverse a jury verdict only in situations where the instruction, viewed as a whole is confusing, misleading, and prejudicial. Barnes v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 201 F.3d 815, 822 (6th Cir.2000). 29 The instruction to which USWA objects provided: 30 In deciding whether the USWA imposed the trusteeship in bad faith, you may consider, among other things, ... 31 (2) whether the international union has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that the continuation of the trusteeship for more than 18 months was necessary for an allowable purpose, and 32 (3) the failure of the international union to provide the procedural requirements mandated by that union's Constitution and bylaws. 33 The instruction does not misstate the law and is in accord with the statutory language of the LMRDA. 3 Further, the instruction is factually correct because the district court held as a matter of law the actions of USWA in imposing and continuing the trusteeship did not comport with the procedural requirements required by the union's constitution and bylaws. 34 Still, USWA argues the instruction effectively instructed the jury that USWA had wrongfully imposed and maintained the trusteeship. It contends the district court refused to admit evidence that would show a reason for the trusteeship's continuation. USWA argues in the face of its inability to present its evidence for continuation, the instruction had the effect of telling the jury the trusteeship was continued for unlawful reasons. This in turn had the effect of tarnishing the reputation of USWA and made it all the more believable USWA imposed the trusteeship for unlawful reasons in the first place. 35 USWA's evidence on continuation of the trusteeship that was excluded was (1) USWA's Commission Report that recommended continuation of the trusteeship and further audits, (2) a letter of January 17, 1996, that stated USWA's Executive Board Appeal Panel adopted the Commission Report, (3) the results of further audits, and (4) a transcript of the August 9, 1996, hearing before a USWA Convention Appeals Committee upholding the decision of the Executive Board Appeals Panel. The district court determined this evidence was not probative to the ultimate issue at trial-whether the trusteeship had been lawfully imposed. It also determined this evidence might unduly influence the jury and usurp its fact-finding function. 36 USWA argues that while this evidence may not have been relevant to the central issue at trial, the district court made this evidence relevant by its jury instruction. As mentioned above, however, the district court also found such evidence to be prejudicial. Admitting or excluding relevant evidence that is prejudicial or confusing is within the district court's discretion. Clarksville-Montgomery County School System v. United States Gypsum Co., 925 F.2d 993, 999 (6th Cir.1991). 37 Further, exclusion of relevant evidence is harmless if other substantially equivalent evidence is admitted. In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d 498, 526 (6th Cir.1996). All of the evidence excluded on the continuation issue showed USWA imposed and maintained the trusteeship because of the Plaintiffs' financial decisions. USWA provided substantially equivalent evidence this was its reason for imposing the trusteeship during the trial. Indeed when USWA tried to procure admission of this evidence a second time, the district court denied its request because, in part, the court felt the evidence was cumulative. The exclusion of this evidence did not prejudice USWA's case on the continuation issue. Thus, the instruction did not effectively instruct the jury USWA had unlawfully imposed the trusteeship and was not prejudicial.