Trial judge's refusal to allow a plaintiff in an excessive force lawsuit to cross examine the defendant officer regarding his prior discipline and conduct, which allegedly would have shown that he was habitually dishonest in his job, resulting in his resignation, was an abuse of discretion, requiring a new trial on claims against the officer. The excessive force claim against him revolved around an issue of his credibility, so that barring this evidence was not harmless. As for claims against the city, alleged negligent monitoring of an officer cannot be the basis of a federal civil rights claim, and the plaintiff failed to establish any inadequate training by the city on use of force or providing required medical care.  Hinojosa v. Butler, No. 07-50566, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 22282 (5th Cir.).
     When a trial judge's instructions about the legal standard for excessive use of force were correct, the judge's error concerning instructions about the proper use of a police investigator's report concerning the shooting of a suspect were harmless. The report, containing statements the shooting officer made to a supervisor after the shooting, while "hearsay within hearsay" could have properly been considered as admissions by a party-opponent in the lawsuit. The trial court had, however, allowed the report to be entered into evidence, and the statements in the report were mostly useful for purposes of impeachment. As the plaintiff's attorney used the statements for that purpose, any error in instructions concerning the use of the report were harmless. Alicea v. Ralston, No. 06-4521, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10736 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Portions of a report by a police department's Internal Investigations Section which concluded that officers detaining a man did so without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, used excessive force, and withheld medical treatment was relevant evidence under Fed. R. Evidence 401, and portions of the report were admissible as an investigative report under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(C). The court, however, granted the city's motion to exclude portions of the report consisting of interviews of four eyewitnesses (which it found constituted "double hearsay"), and the legal conclusion of the city's chief lawyer. Nowell v. City of Cincinnati, No. 1:03cv859, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68182 (S.D. Ohio). [N/R]
     In arrestee's lawsuit against state trooper for alleged excessive force used against him during the arrest, evidence that the trooper had failed a polygraph test given on unrelated criminal charges brought against him was not admissible as evidence, and evidence of those unrelated criminal charges were also not relevant to the issue of whether the trooper had used excessive force. Jury verdict in favor of trooper upheld on appeal. Cook v. State Dept. of Public Safety, No. 2005 CA 0475, 928 So. 2d 589 (La. App. 2006). [N/R]
     In a lawsuit by an arrestee claiming that officers used excessive force against him, even if the department's rules establishing procedures for responding to domestic violence calls was relevant in some sense, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluded it from evidence, because it had the potential to confuse or mislead the jury concerning the issues in the case. Ruffin v. City of Boston, No. 03-2102, 146 Fed. Appx. 501 (1st Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Evidence of threats that an arrestee allegedly made before his arrest, which were relayed to the officers who arrived on the scene were admissible in excessive force lawsuit to show officers' reason for entering a house with their weapons drawn and immediately rolling him from the sofa to the floor to handcuff him. Gallagher v. City of West Covina, No. 03-55391, 141 Fed. Appx. 577 (9th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court overturns jury verdict in favor of law enforcement defendants who allegedly interfered with the efforts of private persons to rescue a man who jumped into a river, and failed to offer a reasonable alternative rescue service. Court holds that "cumulative-error" doctrine should apply to civil cases, and that a new trial was required because of a number of evidentiary errors made by the trial court. Beck v. Haik, No. 01-2723 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 15590 (6th Cir.). [2004 LR Sep]
     In a lawsuit against a town for the death of a motorist whose vehicle was struck by an officer's car, the nature of the call that the officer was responding to at the time was relevant to determining whether the officer acted in reckless disregard of the safety of others, and therefore was admissible. Allen v. Town of Amherst, 778 N.Y.S.2d 598 (A.D. 4th Dept. 2004). [N/R]
     Plaintiff who was shot by police officer could not withhold his medical records in a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city and officer on the basis of doctor-patient privilege or medical records privilege, nor could he assert the right of privacy based on a provision of the California state constitution to prevent the disclosure of those records. The plaintiff, who claimed that he was shot in the back because the officer was in poor physical condition and was therefore unable to pursue him on foot, was also entitled in the case to the disclosure of the officer's medical records, including those in a workers' compensation file. Hutton v. City of Martinez, 219 F.R.D. 164 (N.D. Cal. 2003). [N/R]
     Arrestee could not successfully seek damages based merely on a custodial interrogation without Mirada warnings when none of her elicited statements were ever used against her at trial. Federal appeals court also overturns $80,000 malicious prosecution award to arrestee, who claimed that officers filed false charges against her and maliciously pursued them in order to assist her officer boyfriend, who she accused of domestic abuse. Plaintiff's opening statement at trial put the question of the defendant officer's truthful character into issue, so it was prejudicial error to exclude evidence of that character. Renda v. King, #01-2421, 347 F.3d 550 (3rd Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Feb]
     In case where elderly couple challenged the validity of search warrant for their home, defendants could be required to either produce a confidential informant for an "in chambers" deposition, to reveal his identity, or to convince the court that, for reasons of safety, his identity need not be revealed. In the alternative, the defendants could be barred from presenting any evidence at trial based on the alleged existence of the informant. Smith v. City of Detroit, No. 01-70740, 212 F.R.D. 507 (E.D. Mich. 2003). [2003 LR Aug]
     Admission into evidence of a videotape showing the plaintiff conducting her daily activities during a trial of her claim that she had suffered serious injuries from the excessive use of force by a police officer was not improper and did not constitute "unfair surprise" when the plaintiff's attorney was furnished with a copy and given a chance to view it prior to its admission. Meiselman v. Byrom, 207 F. Supp. 2d 40 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
     Admission into evidence of an audiotape of an arrestee's conversation with a police dispatcher was not an abuse of discretion in a federal civil rights case in which the arrestee claimed that she had been improperly arrested for public intoxication. The audiotape's reproduction of the arrestee's "hysterical conversation" with the dispatcher was "no more prejudicial" than the arresting officer's account of "her drunken behavior," so that the court could not say that its admission was so prejudicial that it violated the plaintiff's "substantial rights." Diamond v. Howd, #00-6323, 288 F.3d 932 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Jury was presumed to have followed trial judge's instructions that lawyers' statements and arguments were not evidence, so that alleged misconduct by defendant police officers' lawyer in giving inference to the jury about items not in evidence during closing arguments was insufficient to support a reversal of the jury's verdict for the defendants in a homeowner's federal civil rights lawsuit over alleged unreasonable search of her house under a warrant. Jones v. Williams, #00-56929, 35 Fed. Appx. 424 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     State troopers destroyed tapes relating to an incident in good faith pursuant to normal practices before any litigation was pending, and additionally, the plaintiffs received transcripts of the tapes, so that there could be no adverse inference as to "spoilation of evidence" in an arrestee's claim for injuries. Arrestee could not collect damages for his fall and cracked skull while restrained at the police station following his arrest for driving while intoxicated, based on testimony by plaintiff's own expert witness that he was properly restrained, and that, while there were alternative restraining methods, they posed their own risks. Raymond v. State, 740 N.Y.S.2d 743 (A.D. 2002). [N/R]
     Plaintiff arrestee's prior history of drinking habits, ownership of guns, and use of prescription drugs was properly admitted into evidence when the plaintiff answered questions on those issues on cross-examination without objections. Trial judge's comments about arrestee acting as his own lawyer in false arrest lawsuit did not require a new trial. O'Brien v. Johnson, 800 So. 2d 64 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
     345:140 Filing of wrongful death claim 28 days after arrestee died gave county and sheriff's department actual notice that it should not destroy audio tapes of 911 calls and radio transmissions concerning incident; California appeals court orders further hearings to determine whether sanctions against defendants in lawsuit are appropriate. Nelson v. Superior Court, #B147607, 107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 469 (Cal. App. 2001).
     345:141 Evidence that suspect, a parolee, possessed a gun at the time officers tried to detain him on suspicion of auto theft, was admissible in his lawsuit against officers for shooting and wounding him; it was relevant as tending to support the officers' version of the incident that he used his vehicle as a weapon to endanger them in his desperation to escape, justifying their use of deadly force. Stevenson v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Dept., 248 F.3d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
     343:105 Introduction of evidence of arrestee's later second arrest for domestic violence was no basis, in the absence of proper objection, for setting aside jury's verdict in favor of arresting officers on his false arrest/excessive force claims. Udemba v. Nicoli, #00-1246, 237 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2001).
     [N/R] Evidence supported jury's verdict in favor of officers on false arrest claim. Even if officer was trespassing on arrestee's business property, the plaintiff's action in slamming the door on the officer's hand was an unreasonable use of force which could support his arrest for battery. Trial court erroneously denied defendant's request for $27,000 in costs for computerized evidence used for presentation to jury, further hearings on reasonableness required. Cefalu v. Village of Elk Grove, No. 98-2708, 211 F.3d 416 (7th Cir. 2000).
     343:105 Federal trial court bars evidence of prior unrelated departmental disciplinary actions against officer accused by arrestee of excessive use of force, as well as evidence about the existence of liability insurance; testimony about whether the arrestee actually hit his wife before the police arrived was not relevant to whether the officer used improper force. Munley v. Carlson, 125 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (N.D. Ill. 2000).
     341:75 Audio tape of police radio, including sound of siren in unmarked car being activated, was properly admitted into evidence and shifted the burden to the motorist plaintiff to show the inauthenticity of the tape; his mere assertion that he had heard no siren did not create a genuine issue of fact in his lawsuit over the stop and search of his vehicle. Smith v. City of Chicago, No. 99-2965, 242 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2001).
     329:74 Evidence that occupants of a motor vehicle worked in the "adult entertainment industry" and that one of them was a prostitute who had worked in a legal brothel was irrelevant to issues in federal civil rights lawsuit over officer's detention of them following a vehicle stop and search of their possessions; introduction of evidence would also be prejudicial; state law emotional distress claim did not alter result. Skultin v. Bushnell, 82 F.Supp. 2d 1258 (D. Utah 2000).
     334:150 Federal appeals court upholds jury verdict in favor of officer who used police dog to subdue an auto theft suspect; plaintiff's two prior felony convictions, based on no contest pleas, were properly used to impeach his testimony; plaintiff was not entitled to an explicit jury instruction concerning "alternative courses of action" available to the officer or the officer's alleged "lack of probable cause" to believe that the plaintiff was armed. Brewer v. City of Napa, #98-16460, 210 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2000).
     [N/R] Exclusion of nonparty police officers' testimony which was consistent with plaintiff's version of incident in which he was mistakenly apprehended by defendant officers in grocery store was not harmless, when detainee's principal eyewitness could be viewed as unpersuasive because of her alleged bias against police. Wasserman v. Bartholomew, No. S-8238, 987 P. 2d 748 (Alaska 1999).
     327:39 Officer was legally justified in shooting and killing a man advancing towards two officers with a knife held to his own throat who had previously stabbing his brother; the fact that he posed a threat to the officers rendered irrelevant any evidence of possible alternate strategies officers might have used prior to that point, or evidence concerning the officer's past disciplinary records or city use of force policy. Yellowback v. City of Sioux Falls, #20719, 600 N.W.2d 554 (S.D. 1999).
     327:43 Appeals court upholds jury verdict in favor of police officers in lawsuit over alleged positional asphyxia in case where they used kneeling wristlock on disturbed man to take him into protective custody; use of courtroom demonstration of kneeling wristlock technique was properly admitted into evidence. Jones v. Ralls, #98-3514, 187 F.3d 848 (8th Cir. 1999).
     330:83 Deputy properly used deadly force against man advancing on him with a piece of concrete in his hand; sheriff's failure to train deputies in the use of deadly force against "crazy" people was no basis for liability when general policy on use of deadly force was correct and no showing of a prior problem in this area was shown; basis for exclusion of expert witness was erroneous, but jury did not need expert help to conclude that deputy acted reasonably. Pena v. Leombruni, No. 99-1435, 200 F.3d 1031 (7th Cir. 1999).
     330:84 Jury properly heard evidence of alleged affair between mayor and arrestee's wife, and trial court properly declined to instruct jury that arrestee had a duty to submit to an arrest without resistance even if it was unjustified; appeals court upholds awards totaling $114,000 against police chief and mayor in lawsuit claiming that improper arrest was made with excessive force based on a purely personal dispute between mayor and arrestee. Goff v. Bise, # 98-2849, 173 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1999).
     331:108 Officer's unsigned and unsworn memorandum, prepared for police department's legal section, was inadmissible hearsay which was improperly relied on by trial judge in granting summary judgment in malicious prosecution case brought by a member of a community police monitoring organization who was issued a citation for following a police vehicle in which two members of her group were being transported following their arrest. Sikora v. Gibbs, No. 98AP-655, 726 N.E.2d 540 (Ohio App. 1999).
     322:151 Plaintiff in civil rights lawsuit concerning his arrest did not impliedly waive therapist-patient privilege by including a claim for emotional distress; medical records during plaintiff's two-year confinement in mental health center after incident not discoverable. Hucko v. City of Oak Forest, 185 F.R.D. 526 (N.D. Ill. 1999). Editor's Note: Other cases on this issue include: Vanderbilt v. Town of Chilmark, 174 F.R.D. 225 (D. Mass. 1997) (mere assertion of emotional damage claim does not constitute a waiver of therapist-patient privilege); and three cases in which an implied waiver was found, Fox v. The Gates Corp., 179 F.R.D. 303 (D. Col. 1998), Vasconcells v. Cybex, 962 F.Supp. 701 (D. Md. 1997), and Sarko v. Penn-Del Directory Co., 170 F.R.D. 127 (E.D. Pa. 1997).
     {N/R} Federal trial judge improperly determined that he did not have discretion to consider additional evidence when deciding whether or not to uphold a magistrate's recommendation in an arrestee's lawsuit against investigating officers; he could properly receive and consider new evidence to determine whether there were genuine issues of fact that would defeat a motion for summary judgment. Freeman v. County of Bexar, #95-50188 142 F.3d 848 (5th Cir. 1998).
     305:77 Convicted robber could not file suit objecting to the disclosure of medical records at his criminal trial when he did not contend that he and the person treated for gunshot wounds at hospital were the same person. Green v. Cooper Medical Hospital, 968 F.Supp. 249 (E.D. Pa. 1997).
     307:109 Officers were entitled to good faith immunity for seizure of truck with missing Vehicle Identification Number; evidence uncovered by their warrantless search of truck was admissible evidence in establishing their defense even if search was illegal; federal appeals court rules that exclusionary rule does not apply in federal civil rights lawsuits; officers also entitled to official immunity on Texas state law claims. Wren v. Towe, 130 F.3d 1154 (5th Cir. 1997).
     309:140 Evidence of arrestee's outstanding parole warrant and prior drug distribution conviction was admissible in arrestee's excessive force lawsuit against officers; evidence of prior misdemeanor convictions and other convictions which were more than ten years old was not. Daniels v. Loizzo, 986 F.Supp. 245 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
     310:155 Man arrested for murder and then confined, for ten years, in psychiatric facility while incompetent for trial, entitled to new trial in civil rights lawsuit against officers alleging false imprisonment and malicious prosecution; suit claimed that confession to police was procured through prior taped conversations with minister who allegedly "fed" suspect details of crime; exclusion of tapes from evidence was reversible error. Sutkiewicz v. Monroe County Sheriff, 110 F.3d 352 (6th Cir. 1997).
     310:156 Plaintiff in excessive force case against police involving "positional asphyxia" could not compel deposition of defendants' lawyer regarding his personal knowledge of the dangers of "positional asphyxia" when plaintiff failed to show that information was unobtainable through other means, relevant and non-privileged, and crucial to preparation of the case. Jones v. Bd. of Police Com'rs of Kansas City, Mo., 176 F.R.D. 625 (W.D. Mo. 1997).
     296:124 In suit over off-duty officer's shooting of passenger in stopped vehicle, trial court did not err in excluding evidence of prior incident in which same officer shot a suspect from another stopped vehicle or in excluding evidence of IACP "model" policies concerning traffic stops by off-duty officers, when issue was not whether stop was proper, but whether use of force against passenger once stop was made was excessive Soller v. Moore, 84 F.3d 964 (7th Cir. 1996).
     287:172 Officer was improperly barred from testifying as expert witness as to whether sheriff's alleged failure to train deputies on proper retrieval and use of shotguns stored in locked trunks of cruisers created unsafe working conditions; summary judgment for defendant sheriff and county overturned in suit brought by deputy shot by assailant while attempting to retrieve shotgun from trunk Gentry v. Mangum, 466 S.E.2d 171 (W.Va. 1995).
     285:137 City and mental health agency was not liable for officer's shooting of paranoid schizophrenic as he exited his bedroom, allegedly advancing on officer with hatchet raised; defendants adequately explained reasons for striking two black jurors, and trial judge correctly excluded evidence which was not relevant to the case at hand McKeel v. City of Pine Bluff, 73 F.3d 207 (8th Cir, 1996).
     279:38 Expert witness testimony on "hedonic damages" (the enjoyment value of human life). barred by trial court in lawsuit over police shooting of individual Ayers v. Robinson, 887 F.Supp. 1049 (N.D.Ill. 1995).
     282:84 Drug evidence from house excluded at criminal trial because of illegality of search was properly introduced into evidence in civil defamation lawsuit brought by resident against police chief who allegedly told his employer he was a "drug dealer"; New Hampshire Supreme Court declines to apply exclusionary rule in civil defamation suit Simpkins v. Town of Bartlett, 661 A.2d 772 (NH 1995).
     286:147 U.S. Supreme Court adopts therapist-patient privilege protecting disclosures during therapy sessions from compelled disclosure in court; affirms ordering of new trial in which jury awarded $545,000 in police shooting case where jury was told it could presume withheld therapy records would be unfavorable to officer Jaffee v. Allen, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996).
     {N/R} Statement on 911 tape which allegedly described officer's beating of plaintiff was not admissible into evidence in absence of any showing that the person making the description had a first hand knowledge of what he described Bemis v. Edwards, 45 F.3d 1369 (9th Cir. 1995).
     {N/R} It was not an abuse of discretion to refuse to allow witnesses who were not disclosed in plaintiff's pretrial list of witnesses to testify; city police department written policies were not relevant in proving arrestee's claims against city Marti v. City of Maplewood, Mo, 57 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 1995).
     269:67 Tape recording of arrest and alleged beating of arrestee which revealed that officer directed a racial epithet at arrestee should have been admitted into evidence as it was relevant to the jury's task of deciding whether force used was reasonable under the circumstances; appeals court rules that exclusion of this portion of tape was an abuse of discretion requiring a new trial in civil rights suit brought by arrestee Brown v. City of Hialeah, 30 F.3d 1433 (11th Cir. 1994).
     269:74 Evidence of plaintiff's prior criminal convictions was properly admitted into evidence during his cross-examination when his direct testimony opened the door to the evidence Duncan v. Wells, 23 F.3d 1322 (8th Cir. 1994).
     272:121 Defendant police officers had the right, in arrestee's federal civil rights excessive force suit against them, to cross-examine arrestee regarding his prior felony convictions during past ten years; cross-examination regarding felony convictions older than ten years barred as unduly prejudicial Charles v. Cotter, 867 F.Supp. 648 (N.D.Ill. 1994).
     Erroneous admission of narcotics informer's hearsay statements into evidence was not harmless and required reversal of jury verdict in favor of arrestee in civil rights suit against narcotics agent Lippay v. Christos, 996 F.2d 1490 (3rd Cir. 1993).
     Trial court properly admitted certified records of plaintiff's robbery and possession of concealed weapons convictions into evidence, as well as evidence of his conviction of PCP drug to impeach his statements, including statments that he had never used PCP Gee v. Pride, 992 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1993).
     Motorist injured in collision with police vehicle could present evidence, in suit against city, that officer allegedly attempted to interfere with bystander attempts to aid him following the accident; evidence was relevant to issue of motorist's emotional injuries Creed v. City of Columbia, 426 S.E.2d 785 (SC 1993).
     Arrestee suing officers for alleged pretextual arrest should have been allowed to introduce evidence of prior incidents which were too long ago to be the basis for a suit, but which still could be used to show officers' alleged retaliatory motive for arresting him Robbins v. City of Miami Beach, 613 So.2d 580 (Fla App. 1993).
     Questions concerning plaintiff's prior felony convictions were clearly proper for purposes of impeaching his truthfulness as a witness; questions concerning his current incarceration, while generally inadmissible for impeachment purposes, were allowable for the purpose of refuting his claim that it was the defendant officers' actions that led to his "negative perception" of law enforcement Gora v. Costa, 971 F.2d 1325 (7th Cir. 1992).
     Trial court properly admitted evidence of medical records of plaintiff in suit over fight with police officer; issue of whether plaintiff had the ability to control his anger and initiated fight made admission to hospital known as treatment center for psychiatric problems relevant Jones v. Wilbur, 604 A.2d 779 (RI 1992).
     Evidence of charges and conviction of rape and kidnapping which were reason for arrest were admissible in civil rights lawsuit brought by arrestee for alleged excessive force Hernandez v. Cepeda, 860 F.2d 260 (7th Cir. 1988).
     Plaintiff sues officers for excessive use of force in arresting him; no error to admit evidence of his prior convictions for robbery, rape and forcible sodomy Jones v. Bd of Police Commissioners, 844 F.2d 500 (8th Cir. 1988). Congressional report on police misconduct inadmissible Anderson v. City of New York, 657 F.Supp. 1571 (S.D.NY 1987).
     State trial judge's testimony about officers' credibility inadmissible in arrestee's civil rights lawsuit; officers granted new trial Schultz v. Thomas, 832 F.2d 108 (7th Cir. 1987).
     Arrestee awarded $151,680 for alleged assault by officers; admission into evidence of dismissal of charges was error but cured by jury instructions Jared v. City of New York, 519 N.Y.S.2d 717 (A.D. 1987).
     In brutality suit against officer, Hawaii supreme court admits evidence of other wrongs he committed and character evidence showing propensity for violence Meyer v. City and County of Honolulu, 731 P.2d 149 (Hawaii 1986).