Court Opinion

ID: 9487387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:15:08.302603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:14.214525
License: Public Domain

TROTT, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result.
I do not disagree with my colleagues that the judgment in this case must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings, but I respectfully disagree with their analysis.
I see nothing wrong with what the trial judge did during voir dire with respect to Scott’s priors, which (as far as I can tell from the record) were expected by both sides to go before the jury on the issue of Scott’s credibility. What the judge did and said was designed at the time to protect Scott from any collateral prejudice that might flow from the limited use of the priors. This, of course, is why neither side objected at anytime to the judge’s voir dire. It is most remarkable that the majority labels as an abuse of discretion an action manifestly taken to protect a litigant’s right to a fair trial, especially when both parties appear to have believed at the time the action was taken that what the judge was doing was perfectly proper. The problem in this case stems from a subsequent and unexpected ruling eliminating the use of Scott’s priors, a ruling the judge could not have foreseen.
Thus, it is because the damaging priors never materialized as evidence that Scott is entitled to a new trial, not because the trial judge abused his discretion during voir dire. Calling something an abuse of discretion in this case imposes on the trial judge a duty of foresight or premonition beyond the ability of even a federal judge.