Opinion ID: 2804550
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: leading the witness

Text: Sara Montalvo, who at the time of trial had been working at Dorado Health since 1984, was the nurse that assisted in F.A.F.R.'s delivery. Plaintiffs called Montalvo to testify, and fairly early on in the questioning counsel began posing leading questions. Defense counsel objected but the attorney for Plaintiffs persisted that leading questions were appropriate because Montalvo was affiliated with Dorado Health. The judge sided with the defense, 2 Plaintiffs also sought to amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because the judgment incorrectly indicated that the jury found no negligence on Dorado Health's part. Recognizing the mistake, the court issued an amended judgment accurately reflecting the verdict. - 4 - noting that Montalvo was not a hostile witness. When Plaintiffs' counsel pressed that under the rules hostility is not the only indicator for leading a witness, and it is appropriate when the witness is identified with the other party, the judge stated, I don't agree . . . If she becomes hostile, you can lead all the way. The judge then sustained the defense's objection to the few additional leading questions asked during the remainder of Montalvo's examination. Plaintiffs claim the court's ruling was off-base because a witness's hostility is not the only justification for posing leading questions. And, according to the Plaintiffs, because they could not pose leading questions, the examination of Montalvo was a disaster, resulting in a miscarriage of justice justifying a new trial.3 Plaintiffs are correct on the first point. Leading questions are generally disfavored on direct examination but [o]rdinarily, the court should allow leading questions . . . when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party. Fed. R. Evid. 611(c)(2) (emphasis added). 3 In their brief, Plaintiffs also indicate that the judge, at one point, did not allow them to impeach Montalvo with her deposition testimony. It is unclear where the Plaintiffs are going with this pithy, isolated reference. To the extent they are attempting to assign error to the judge's conduct, the argument is waived for failure to develop. See González-Morales v. Hernández-Arencibia, 221 F.3d 45, 48 n.3 (1st Cir. 2000). - 5 - Consequently, it seems likely that the judge's ruling was based on an error of law and therefore an abuse of discretion. See Ira Green, Inc. v. Military Sales & Serv. Co., 775 F.3d 12, 18 (1st Cir. 2014). But even assuming this to be the case, the judge's potential misapplication of the rule is not enough. Prejudice is required for a party to prevail on a claim of improper exclusion of leading questions. Rodriguez v. Banco Cent. Corp., 990 F.2d 7, 13 (1st Cir. 1993); Fed. R. Evid. 103(a). For starters, this would require a proffer on Plaintiffs' part, in other words, a showing of some specific information that counsel might have elicited if permitted the use of leading questions. Rodriguez, 990 F.2d at 13; see also Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(2). That component is missing here. Neither at the sidebar with the judge, nor in the motion for a new trial, did Plaintiffs offer any indication as to what they might have been able to extract from Montalvo given some leeway with the questioning. The same goes for their brief to this court, as well as at oral argument, despite the panel pointing out the proffer's omission. It was not until post oral-argument, via a Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter (ostensibly submitted to supplement their list of authorities), that Plaintiffs indicated what they would have proven had they been allowed to examine Montalvo with leading questions, e.g., omitted - 6 - nursing notes, lies about her findings, and deficient hospital protocols. Not only is it improper to advance new arguments in a 28(j) letter, Ruskai v. Pistole, 775 F.3d 61, 66-67 (1st Cir. 2014), but it is far too late in the game. See, e.g., United States v. Bayard, 642 F.3d 59, 63 (1st Cir. 2011) (providing that the appellant's failure to brief the issue waives it). Given their failure to establish prejudice, Plaintiffs' first argument affords no relief. We move on.