Court Opinion

ID: 9481535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:22:00.907721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:22.963321
License: Public Domain

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
When Phillip Coleman was called to the office of Postal Supervisor Clyde Headley on March 31, 1988, he was entering the office of a postal official who had previously harassed him, who had been disciplined *564for that harassment, and who had threatened Mr. Coleman with escalated harassment. Now Mr. Headley informed Mr. Coleman that he was being fired. Two postal inspectors were present. Whether these law enforcement officers simply attempted to calm Mr. Coleman or impermis-sibly roughed him up is a jury question involving delicate and complex issues of credibility. In determining whether Mr. Coleman acted under a reasonable belief that he was the object of an illegal assault, the jury had a right to know that the man in whose office the activity took place and who had caused the show of force by arranging for the presence of the inspectors had threatened the defendant with escalated harassment. Consequently, in my view, the district court should have admitted the proffered statement of Mr. Headley. Moreover, because the statement was crucial to the self-defense argument of the defendant and required the jury’s credibility assessment, I cannot say that it was harmless error.
Evidentiary rulings are reviewed under a highly deferential standard which appellate courts express in a variety of semantical formulas. This deference is justified by the institutional roles that trial courts and appellate courts play in the administration of justice. Nevertheless, we must remember that one function of the appellate court is to take the long, unruffled view of a matter that the trial court necessarily must decide with greater speed. Consequently, no disrespect need be intended or ought to be implied when, occasionally, an appellate court assesses the impact of an evidentiary ruling in a different light than the trial court. While our review is deferential, it is a review nonetheless.
I would reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.