Opinion ID: 1707287
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: substantially different evidence in simpson ii

Text: Gloria Simpson first alleges that State Farm either unintentionally or intentionally doctored certain photographs so as to place her claim under this exception to the law of the case. The alleged manipulation involved certain photographs, introduced in Simpson II as Defendant's Exhibit 15, and introduced in Simpson I as part of the SEA Fire Analysis, Plaintiff's Exhibit 8, and as part of Plaintiff's Exhibit 10. The photographs in question were taken by Phil Hampton, a fire investigator for Systems Engineering Associates, on August 28, 1978. Mr. Hampton was employed by State Farm and testified for State Farm in both trials. Hampton was accompanied to the Simpson home that day by Oren Haddock, a State Farm employee who investigated the fire. According to Gloria Simpson, this Court in Simpson I relied heavily on these photographs in finding that State Farm had an arguable reason to deny the claim, and could escape liability for punitive damages. It is true that this Court did list [t]he photographs taken by Systems Engineering Associates which graphically depict the burn pattern as one of ten items which State Farm was able to consider in deciding to deny the Simpsons' claim on November 1, 1978. Simpson I, 477 So.2d at 251-252. The allegation that the photographs making up Defendant's Exhibit 15 were not what they appeared to be came from Barry Jones, called by the Simpsons as a rebuttal witness in Simpson II. Mr. Jones was shown Defendant's Exhibit 15, and in response stated that [i]t appears to me that this photograph was shot while this area was still wet... . I don't believe this particular photograph actually depicts the scene as it was. It appears that the pattern may have been enhanced by the liquid use[d] to clear the area. Mr. Jones could not remember when he visited the fire scene, but it was several years after the fire. Jones stated on cross-examination that he believe[d] that particular pattern is probably water that was on the sink at the time of the photograph. When asked if Phil Hampton would use water to simulate a burn pattern, Jones said that he might have done it to enhance the patterns he was seeing. When asked if Norm Cowart, Deputy State Fire Marshal, would use water to try to alter the appearance of the pattern, Jones said that [m]ost fire investigators pour water on areas to clear them out. Now, if the photograph was shot while the water was still there I don't know if that's an intentional act or it's just part of their investigative technique. I personally don't do that, but someone else may. Gloria Simpson claims that Jones's testimony shows deceit, misrepresentation, and fraud on the part of State Farm. We find the testimony to be equivocal at best. The record shows that these disputed photographs were introduced in Simpson I. Mr. Jones was available as a witness in Simpson I but was never called. In Baumer v. United States, 685 F.2d 1318 (11th Cir.1982), the substantially different evidence was evidence which Baumer possessed during his first trial, but decided not to use. The 11th Circuit, in rejecting this as an exception to the law of the case, stated: There is nothing in the record to indicate that the evidence produced at the hearing after remand was unavailable to the taxpayers during the first trial. The taxpayers simply chose not to produce that evidence. They chose their trial strategy, litigated accordingly, and lost. They are not now entitled to resurrect a previously abandoned issue. Baumer, 685 F.2d at 1321. In Simpson II, the photographs in question were introduced through Robert Bell, a consultant in failure analysis who investigated the fire for the Simpsons and testified for them. When Defendant's Exhibit 15 was introduced, Mr. Bell was asked if he had taken any photographs which showed the same dark pattern. Bell answered, The same dark pattern. I'm sure that I do. And I saw that, but I do not have those photographs handy. Bell agreed that the dark area was where the floor had been burned, although Bell asserted that the floor burned because the roof dumped in on it. Gloria Simpson claims that because State Farm did not call witnesses to rebut Jones's charge, there is a presumption that their testimony would not have been favorable to State Farm. Fuller v. Sloan, 230 So.2d 574, 576 (Miss. 1970). Whatever presumption may have arisen is not a strong one. Hampton and Cowart could have been questioned about this alleged fraud on cross-examination, and were not. Gloria Simpson also argues that a significant portion of her photographic evidence never reached this Court after the trial in Simpson, I. She specifically mentions Plaintiffs' Exhibits 1, 6, 7 and 10. Exhibit 1 is included in the record in Simpson I. The other three exhibits did not reach this Court. Exhibit 6 consisted of a board containing 15 photographs. Exhibit 7 consisted of a board containing 7 photographs. Exhibit 10 consisted of a board containing 8 photographs. The majority of the photographs in question were taken by Gerald Baxley, an arson investigator for the City of Pritchard, Alabama, who testified for the Simpsons in Simpson I. Baxley took the pictures between January 12 and approximately February 15, 1979. The other pictures making up Exhibit 10 were blowups from SEA Fire Analysis, which were available to this Court in Simpson I as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 8, already mentioned earlier. Gerald Baxley did not testify in Simpson II. Several of the photographs in question were re-introduced in the second trial. It does not appear that it was the Simpson's failure which caused these exhibits not to be sent. Gloria Simpson, therefore, argues that without this evidence this Court could not completely review and equitably decide Simpson I. Simpson I states that the Simpsons' claim was denied on November 21, 1978, and that State Farm decided to deny the claim on November 1, 1978. Simpson I, 477 So.2d at 250-251. The issue which involved review of photographic evidence was whether or not State Farm had an arguable basis, in law or fact, for denying the claim. The Simpson I analysis took into consideration the evidence which was available to State Farm at the time that this decision was made, apparently November 1, 1978. The question then appears to be one of relevance. We have reviewed the photographs in question and find that evidence which did not exist in November 1978, was not and is not relevant to this question of State Farm's arguable basis to deny the claim. Gloria Simpson has failed to show that the evidence presented in Simpson II was substantially new or different than that which was available in Simpson I.