Opinion ID: 184530
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Opened Door Doctrine

Text: The magistrate judge's exclusion of testimony aboutDoyle's alleged bias is particularly surprising in light of theadmission in evidence of Doyle's self-serving statementsabout his lack of discriminatory intent. When Doyle testifiedon direct examination that he had recommended to Evans that three employees, including Griffin, be terminated, thefollowing exchange ensued: Q.Did you make those recommendations because they were women? A.No.... It has nothing to do with women. It has to do with someone who has an electricians' [sic] license who did not know basic fundamentals. By eliciting that testimony, the WCC opened the door tomatters excluded by its own motion in limine. Testimonyimpugning Doyle's intent should have been admitted on rebuttal at least for purposes of impeachment and in order toprevent the jury from forming the erroneous impression thatthe proper characterization of Doyle's intent was undisputed. See United States v. Baird, 29 F.3d 647, 654 (D.C. Cir. 1994)(Once the door is opened, the other party can get through itotherwise irrelevant evidence 'to the extent necessary toremove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise haveensued' ). Yet when Griffin's counsel tried to bring theexcluded evidence in through the door opened during thedefendant's case-in-chief, the magistrate judge denied themotion, thus compounding his error.