Opinion ID: 1838841
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidence Pertinent to the Criminal Charges

Text: At trial, plaintiff denied that he ever stole fares or committed any other act of dishonesty during the eighteen year period that he worked as a streetcar operator. Robert Mitchell, one of the two RTA employees who implicated plaintiff in a statement to police, testified at trial that his statement to police was false and was made under duress. Police told him that they would give him lenient treatment if he implicated plaintiff, so he did so. Mitchell denied ever having seen plaintiff stealing fares and denied that plaintiff had ever talked to him about stealing fares. Herman Franklin, the other operator who made a statement to police implicating plaintiff, was not called as a witness at trial. No court records were introduced regarding the disposition of the criminal charges made against plaintiff. The only evidence in the record regarding the disposition of those charges is plaintiff's testimony. Plaintiff testified that theft charges which were filed against him in criminal district court at the time of his arrest were later dropped. Plaintiff stated that he was also charged with conspiracy in Orleans Parish municipal court in connection with the allegations that led to the arrest, and that he pled no contest to the municipal court charge, contrary to his personal preference but on the advice of his attorney (not the same attorney who represents him in this suit). [1] Finally, we note that plaintiff presented certain testimony which was in the nature of character evidence. Certain witnesses testified that plaintiff had a good work record, had received a number of safety commendations, had not been involved in any previous trouble, had a reputation for honesty, and was relied upon by RTA to train new streetcar operator recruits because his supervisors thought so highly of his work.