Opinion ID: 1360370
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Recall of Dr. Johnson

Text: The Nolans argue that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow them to call Superintendent Johnson a second time to rebut testimony from other witnesses that no one other than the Nolans had ever complained about Anderson and Henry. This Court will only overturn a district court's evidentiary decisions if we are firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. Morales, 151 F.3d at 516. The Nolans claim that Johnson would have testified consistent with her prior public statements, that there exists at Hamilton High an environment that either ignores or condones sexual harassment between students and staff and promotes a climate of fear and intimidation that threatens the safety and well-being of the student body and staff. (ROA Tr. 424.) They argue that they were entitled to recall Johnson and present this testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 607, which allows a party to attack the credibility of its own witnesses. It is undisputed, however, that Johnson's statements involved allegations of sexual harassment and were made in the context of another case, rather than referring to Coach Anderson's and Henry's use of corporal punishment within the Basketball program. (ROA Tr. 424-29.) Therefore, the district court acted well within its discretion by excluding that testimony under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 403 as more prejudicial than probative.