Opinion ID: 2973174
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Video-testimony of Anthony Gorton

Text: Appellants also argue that the district court improperly curtailed the video-recorded deposition testimony of Anthony Gorton (“Gorton”), a former city council member. Gorton’s deposition testimony contained negative references to Crosby’s general behavior as well as testimony regarding an incident in which Crosby was accused of lying to city council. The district 8 court permitted the video to be played, but, following the video, gave the jury an instruction pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“Rule 404(b)”). Appellants also contend that the district court stopped the video before it was finished. Appellants argue that both the instruction and the stopping of the video were improper. The basis for the district court’s Rule 404(b) instruction was that Gorton’s testimony included references to Gorton’s belief that Crosby “yells,” “screams”, and “upsets” people, and has caused employees to quit. There was no specific reference, however, to Crosby’s interactions with Gale. After the video, the court instructed the jury that, to the extent that this witness testified that he believed that Mr. Frank Crosby had some particular traits of character, anger and whatnot, it is not proper for you to consider any such evidence in attempting to decide whether Crosby on a particular occasion relating to Gale may have acted in the same way (JA 1111-12.) Rule 404(b) provides that “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” Gorton’s opinion that Crosby had, on prior occasions, resorted to fits of anger seems to fall within this rule.1 The decision to admit the testimony subject to the Rule 404(b) instruction is both fair and proper, particularly where the testimony was given by video deposition, making it difficult for the court to regulate individual questions and answers. We find, therefore, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving the Rule 404(b) instruction. 1 The Gales did not contend at trial that Gorton’s observations of Crosby were sufficient to establish the existence of a “habit” under Rule 406 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. We do not, accordingly, express any opinion regarding the interplay between generally inadmissible character evidence and the quantum of evidence sufficient to establish the existence of a habit or routine. 9 As to the claim that the district court somehow curtailed the playing of the video, we find no support in the record at trial for Appellants’ claim that the video was not played in full. According to the transcript, the district court called a brief recess to discuss the Rule 404(b) issue, after which the court called the jury back and remarked, “Please be seated and let’s continue with the deposition.” (JA 1109.) The transcript then contains the parenthetical note, “(Video dep continuing of ANTHONY GORTON).” (JA 1109.) There is no indication that the video was not played in its entirety. Appellants seem to argue that the court stopped the video based on Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. (Appellants’ Brief at 21 (“The lower court failed to give careful and extensive consideration to the relevant facts and law in reaching its conclusion that the testimony of Mr. Gorton was more prejudicial than probative.”)) As indicated above, however, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the video was stopped, much less that it was stopped based on Rule 403. Indeed, the district court’s only reference to Rule 403 in this portion of the transcript was as an aside during its recess to discuss the Rule 404(b) instruction, saying that the testimony “may be violative of Rule 403. I think it very likely is violative of Rule 404(b).” (JA 1107) (emphasis added). Appellants, nonetheless, contend that the video was stopped before Gorton testified about specific instances in which Crosby allegedly lied to the city council. Appellants argue that “[t]his testimony as to Mr. Crosby’s propensity for lying is and was relevant as to the critical issue of reliability.” Assuming that the video was in fact stopped, it is clear that Rule 608(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“Rule 608(b)”) would bar any testimony by Gorton as to specific instances where Crosby lied to city council. Rule 608(b) provides that “[s]pecific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness’ character for truthfulness . . . may 10 not be proved by extrinsic evidence.” Allowing Appellants to play Gorton’s deposition testimony as to specific instances in which Crosby lied would clearly constitute extrinsic evidence of specific instances of conduct used to attack Crosby’s character for truthfulness. Even if the district court did curtail the video, there was no abuse of discretion in doing so because the testimony would have been barred by Rule 608(b).