Court Opinion

ID: 9470421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:05:40.759507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:53.525080
License: Public Domain

MIKVA, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result:
I agree with the majority that the appellant’s conviction should be affirmed because the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the photographs as either irrelevant or misleading, see Fed.R.Evid. 402-403. I concur only in the result, however, because I am troubled by the way in which the majority characterizes the “law of the case” doctrine. See generally Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444, 32 S.Ct. 739, 740, 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912) (doctrine “merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit to their power”). Although such a flexible doctrine does not require that a trial court render the same evidentiary rulings upon a new trial that it issued during the first trial, it does suggest that a decision to exclude evidence previously admitted should be explained fully by the trial judge and subjected to more rigorous scrutiny on appellate review. Cf. Miller v. Poretsky, 595 F.2d 780, 784 (D.C.Cir.1978) (“representations made [at pretrial conference] should only be reneged upon with great reluctance, usually only to prevent manifest injustice”). Applying such heightened scrutiny to the particular facts of this case, however, does not require reversal of the district court.