Opinion ID: 4233792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Excluded Policies

Text: The first issue on appeal is whether the district court committed reversible error when it excluded as irrelevant evidence of incoming-mail policies from other institutions. We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and give “deference to the district judge who saw and heard the evidence.” United States v. Johnson, 860 F.3d 1133, 1139 (8th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). A -4- court abuses its discretion when “a relevant factor that should have been given significant weight is not considered; when an irrelevant or improper factor is considered and given significant weight; and when all proper factors, and no improper ones, are considered, but the court, in weighing those factors, commits a clear error of judgment.” Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Dawson, 725 F.3d 885, 893 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Kern v. TXO Prod. Corp., 738 F.2d 968, 970 (8th Cir. 1984)). We will only reverse an improper evidentiary ruling if it affected a party’s substantial rights or more than slightly influenced the verdict. Johnson, 860 F.3d at 1139. Further, “[w]e will not reverse a harmless error.” Id. Ms. Simpson argues that the district court committed reversible error because the Supreme Court has held that the policies of other correctional institutions are relevant in deciding whether a jail’s policy violates a constitutional right and excluding the other institutions’ incoming-mail policies prevented her from presenting relevant, substantive evidence showing that the postcard-only policy was unconstitutional. Cape Girardeau argues that the court did not abuse its discretion because: Ms. Simpson did not make an appropriate offer of proof to preserve the issue on appeal; she did not show how the policies were relevant or how their exclusion would be prejudicial; and considering the other prisons’ policies would be a waste of time under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Assuming that the district court abused its discretion when it excluded the other institutions’ policies, we only reverse the district court if the exclusion of the policies affected Ms. Simpson’s substantial rights or if the ruling “had more than a slight influence on the verdict.” Johnson, 860 F.3d at 1139 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, though the district court excluded the policies from other institutions, it still considered Cape Girardeau’s previous incoming-mail policy as an alternative policy. Cape Girardeau’s previous policy does not meaningfully differ from the other institutions’ incoming-mail policies. Cape Girardeau’s previous policy and the other institutions’ policies did not contain postcard-only restrictions, and all called for mail -5- inspections before the mail was delivered to the inmates. Because these policies are materially indistinguishable, the other institutions’ policies would not have made a difference in the district court’s analysis. Additionally, Ms. Simpson was able to adequately present evidence on the fourth Turner factor by presenting Cape Girardeau’s previous policy as an alternative to the postcard-only policy. Therefore, Ms. Simpson’s substantial rights were not affected, and the exclusion of the policies did not have an impact on the district court’s decision. We hold that the exclusion, if error, was harmless.