Opinion ID: 753715
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Exclusion of the Deposition Testimony of Monk

Text: 14 When Monk refused to testify at trial, Li offered in evidence portions of Monk's deposition testimony taken during pretrial discovery. In order to determine whether Monk was an unavailable witness within the meaning of Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(1) (prior testimony of unavailable witness not excludable as hearsay under certain circumstances), the district court questioned Monk outside the presence of the jury. The colloquy included the following: 15 THE COURT: Now, that testimony that you gave [in your deposition] was preliminary to this trial. 16 THE WITNESS: Yes, but some of the things I didn't say in that. 17 THE COURT: Well, you were asked questions and you answered the questions. 18 THE WITNESS: I answered, yes. But some of the things I did not say. 19 THE COURT: Well, did you answer the questions truthfully? 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. 21 (Tr. 241-42.) Defendants interpreted Monk's first two responses, some of the things I did not say, to mean that some of the answers shown in the deposition transcript were not accurate transcriptions of what Monk had said, and defendants objected to the introduction of Monk's deposition testimony partly on that ground. The court, concerned that defendants would be unfairly disadvantaged by the introduction of the deposition testimony, ordered Monk to testify at trial. Monk, however, refused; and he indicated that the threat of being held in contempt would not alter his decision because he was already incarcerated. 22 Li's attorney then asked Monk, Mr. Lee, if I asked you the same questions that I asked you at the deposition in October, would you answer the questions? (Tr. 251.) Monk responded, I would not answer. (Id.) Defense counsel, stating his view that Monk had indicated that some of the deposition answers as reported were not accurate, asked the court to attempt to determine what answers he was talking about. (Id.) The court then sought confirmation from Monk that he had answered the deposition questions truthfully: 23 THE COURT: .... Mr. Lee, when you were asked questions in October and you answered those questions, were your answers truthful?THE WITNESS: I refuse to answer the questions. Why do you keep asking me questions? 24 THE COURT: You refuse to answer that question? 25 THE WITNESS: Whatever questions you ask me today in court, I will not answer. 26 THE COURT: I thought I had asked you that earlier, and asked whether what you said [during your deposition] was the truth, and that you said something like there are things I didn't say but what I said was the truth. 27 Did I misunderstand you? 28 (Pause) 29 THE WITNESS: I'm very confused at the moment. 30 .... 31 THE COURT: Has [your lawyer], with an interpreter, gone over the questions and answers of your deposition with you? 32 THE WITNESS: Yes. 33 THE COURT: Are there any answers that you gave that were not truthful? 34 THE WITNESS: Yes, some of the answers I didn't answer. 35 THE COURT: But when you answered, when you gave an answer, did you give an answer that was truthful? 36 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, you continue asking me questions. You want me to answer again. 37 No matter what time you are going to give me, I'm willing to stay in jail. 38 (Tr. 251-52, 254-55 (emphasis added).) Neither the court nor the parties sought to ask Monk any further questions. 39 The court concluded that although Monk had no cognizable privilege to refuse to testify at trial (having waived at his deposition whatever Fifth Amendment privilege he might have had as to the subject matter to be covered at trial), he was as a practical matter unavailable within the meaning of Rule 804(b)(1) because, in the court's view, he was adamant about not testifying at trial, even under penalty of civil contempt. However, in light of Monk's statements about his answers at the deposition, the court questioned whether the deposition was sufficiently reliable to be introduced. 40 After reading Monk's deposition and hearing the trial testimony of Tang, the court concluded that Monk's deposition should not be admitted in evidence. 41 I reach that determination based on a number of factors. One is what it is that the deposition if admitted would contribute to the critical disputed facts of the case, but my primary reason for it is the serious doubts which exist as to the accuracy of the deposition. Namely, the deponent's statement to the Court that the answers that he previously gave in the deposition were not full and complete answers, and so whatever indicia of reliability would normally attach to a deposition is diluted by the affirmative statement of Mr. Lee that his statements at this deposition were not full and complete responses. 42 With respect to the critical issue in the case, and that is what happened to the plaintiff, the deposition would cast little light other than what is contained in the testimony of Tang and otherwise in the record. 43 (Tr. 419.) 44 Li's counsel later renewed his proffer of the deposition testimony, proposing that the court allow him to read to the jury the relevant portions of the deposition, along with Monk's in-court responses that, one, the answers that he gave to the specific questions were truthful, and, two, he did not tell everything that he knew about the incident. (Tr. 663.) After reviewing the pertinent parts of Monk's deposition, the court noted that, when asked what he had seen happen to Li in the elevator, Monk gave no answer that was particularized as to Li. The pertinent passages included the following: 45 Q. You told us that you and Gum Pai and Tang were beaten up in the elevator. How do you know that Gum Pai was beaten up in the elevator? 46 A. I just know that the three of us were beaten up inside the elevator. 47 Q. How do you know Gum Pai was beaten up?A. I don't know how to answer your question. 48 Q. Did you see him being beaten up? 49 A. I saw [that] all three of us were being beaten up. 50 (Tr. 665 (quoting Monk deposition transcript (Monk Dep.) 15 (bracketed word in deposition)).) 51 Q. Who else besides yourself was beaten up, sir? 52 A. I don't know how they were beaten up but we were all being beaten up. 53 (Tr. 664 (quoting Monk Dep. 12).) Noting that what this case really turns on is the allegation that somebody jumped on [Li] when he was on the floor of the elevator (Tr. 666), the court pointed out that Monk did not so testify. For example, while Monk testified in detail as to the assault on himself, he never said he saw any officer hitting, kicking, or stomping on Li; and although Monk gave wholesale responses that he saw all three of the inmates being beaten up, he did not give responsive answers indicating eyewitness observation of a beating of Li when the question focused specifically on Li. Thus, the court noted that [w]hen he's asked what he saw happen[ ] to the plaintiff, he doesn't testify. (Tr. 664.) The court adhered to its earlier ruling that Monk's deposition testimony would be excluded. 54 Explaining that ruling further after trial, the court pointed out that satisfaction of the elements of Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(1) does not immunize prior testimony from the scrutiny accorded any other testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Opinion dated April 9, 1997 (Opinion), at 14, and that the court had excluded the deposition testimony pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 403 because 55 the deposition [was] less than credible in light of Monk's own statements during an examination by the Court outside the presence of the jury, too vague to be probative, and cumulative with the testimony of Tang and the plaintiff. 56 Opinion at 9-10. The court pointed out that 57 Monk was asked three times during his deposition about the assault in the elevator. While he offered some details as to the assault on him (that he was struck with a walkie-talkie), he was vague as to the nature of the alleged assault on the plaintiff. He was also unable to provide details as to plaintiff's physical condition, or whether he appeared to be in pain, prior to the elevator ride but after the inmate fight on 11 South, or as to the nature of plaintiff's injuries once they both arrived on 9 South. Monk's prior testimony could not have led the jury to the specific conclusion that plaintiff's arm was broken in the elevator. Nor could it have assisted the jury in determining whether, even if plaintiff's arm was broken by an inmate during the fight on 11 South, the defendants' treatment of him once in the elevator violated his constitutional rights. As such, if admitted, it would not have had a material effect on the outcome of the case. 58 While wary of usurping the fact-finding function of the jury, and cognizant of the jury's role in weighing the credibility of testimony and evidence, the Court found Monk's prior testimony inadmissible because Monk himself--not the Court and not the parties--raised serious questions about his veracity. 59 Id. at 13-14. 60 In submitting the case to the jury, the court instructed that no inference was to be drawn against either side from the fact that Monk was not called as a witness. The jury was asked to answer the following threshold question: 61 Has the plaintiff, Jian An Li, proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any Bureau of Prisons employee or employees violated plaintiff's constitutional rights by assaulting him in an elevator in the MCC on the night of November 10, 1994? 62 The jury answered that question in the negative, and judgment was entered dismissing the complaint. The district court denied Li's posttrial motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. This appeal followed.