Opinion ID: 2973174
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: “The Shawnee Street Memorandum”

Text: The final evidentiary ruling Appellants challenge is the exclusion of a memorandum, known as the “Shawnee Street Memorandum,” and the refusal by the district court to permit crossexamination of Crosby and Harvey Schmidt (“Schmidt”), mayor of the City, regarding that memorandum. The “Shawnee Street Memorandum” was a memorandum written to a school superintendent describing how to influence city council in order to receive favorable decisions. Crosby was accused by city council of authoring the memorandum, which he denied. Appellants claim that Crosby lied to city council when he denied writing the memorandum, and sought to expose that alleged lie to attack Crosby’s credibility. The memorandum was unrelated to the Gales or any events involved in their lawsuit. Appellants sought to introduce the memorandum during cross-examination of both Schmidt and Crosby, and the district court excluded the memorandum in both instances; in addition, the district court barred cross-examination of either Schmidt or Crosby as to the memorandum. First, as to Schmidt, it is clear that the district court did not abuse its discretion either in excluding the memorandum itself or in barring cross-examination concerning the memorandum. This is the precise subject matter of Gorton’s video-recorded deposition testimony, and, for the same reasons, it is likewise prohibited by Rule 608(b). The sole purpose of cross-examination regarding 11 the memorandum and the introduction of the memorandum, as admitted by Appellants, was to show that Crosby lied to city council “for its probative value regarding Crosby’s propensity for truthfulness or untruthfulness as a witness.” (Appellants’ Brief at 23.) Specific instances of Crosby’s conduct used to attack his character for truthfulness, such as lying to city council, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. Both the testimony of Schmidt and the memorandum constitute extrinsic evidence, and are barred for those reasons. As to Crosby, however, it was squarely within the court’s discretion to determine whether to allow cross-examination as to the memorandum. After Rule 608(b)’s general prohibition on extrinsic evidence for credibility attacks, the Rule continues that specific instances of conduct “may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness concerning the witness’ character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.” (emphasis added). The district court, therefore, had discretion to permit or prohibit cross-examination of Crosby regarding the memorandum. The district court prohibited questions on the matter, relying on Rule 403's balancing test2 and finding that “there’s a significant enough risk of confusing the issues on the jury that it should be excluded.” (JA 1373.) We do not find that the district court’s decision was an abuse of discretion. Although the specific instances of conduct, e.g., allegedly lying to city council, are probative of Crosby’s credibility, they did not relate to any substantive areas of the case. On the other side of the scale, there is a substantial risk that the jury may have been distracted by the peripheral question of whether Crosby lied to city council about matters unrelated to the lawsuit. Overall, 2 “Rule 608(b) is still subject to the balancing under Rule 403.” United States v. Atwell, 766 F.2d 416, 420 (10th Cir. 1985). 12 while a close call, we are not “firmly convinced” that the district court erred in refusing to permit questions about the Shawnee Street Memorandum. This is especially true given that Rule 403 decisions “are placed within the sound discretion of the trial court.” In re Beverly Hills Fire Litigation, 695 F.2d 207, 218 (6th Cir. 1982). We are not compelled to upset the district court’s discretion in this instance.