Carter v. Hewitt
617 F.2d 961 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A document containing a witness's own words that describes a plan to fabricate claims is admissible as direct substantive evidence of that plan under FRE 404(b). It is not barred as extrinsic evidence for impeachment under FRE 608(b) if the witness admits to authoring it, nor is it considered unfairly prejudicial under FRE 403.
Facts:
- Reginald Carter was an inmate at a Pennsylvania state prison, housed in the maximum security block following his role in an escape attempt.
- On September 22, 1977, three prison guards, John Fuiek, Duane Pyles, and Gilbert Levi, conducted a search, or "shakedown," of Carter's cell.
- Carter alleged that during the shakedown, the three guards severely beat him with various objects, including batons and a flashlight.
- The guards contended that no beating occurred, but rather that Carter grabbed one guard's baton, leading to a brief struggle before Carter released it.
- Approximately six months after the alleged beating, Carter wrote a letter to a fellow inmate under the name "Abdullah."
- The letter gave instructions on how to file a complaint against prison guards for brutality.
- The letter contained the statements: "This is a set up my brother — compile complaints to be use for bullshit courts..." and "We want to establish a pattern of barbaric brutal harrassment [sic] and turn it on these chumps to the max."
Procedural Posture:
- Reginald Carter filed a § 1983 action against prison guards and the superintendent in the U.S. District Court.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment.
- The district court referred the case to a U.S. Magistrate.
- After Carter stated he could not obtain responsive affidavits, the Magistrate conducted a full evidentiary hearing at the prison.
- During the hearing, the Magistrate allowed a letter written by Carter to be read into evidence over Carter's objection, reserving a ruling on its ultimate admissibility.
- The Magistrate issued a report recommending judgment for the defendants, in which he admitted the letter into evidence as bearing on Carter's credibility and plan.
- The district court adopted the Magistrate's recommendations and entered a final judgment for the defendants.
- Carter, the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of a letter written by a plaintiff-inmate, which could be interpreted as a plan to fabricate brutality complaints, violate Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b), 608(b), or 403 when used against him in his own brutality lawsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Garth, J.
No, the admission of the letter does not violate the Federal Rules of Evidence. The letter is admissible as direct, substantive evidence of the plaintiff's plan to file false complaints. Under FRE 404(b), the letter is not evidence of 'other acts' used to infer a plan; it is direct evidence of the plan itself, so the rule's requirements for showing a pattern of similar acts do not apply. Under FRE 608(b), the ban on extrinsic evidence for impeachment is inapplicable because its purpose is to avoid mini-trials on collateral matters when a witness denies the conduct; here, Carter admitted authorship of the letter, obviating the rule's concerns. Finally, under FRE 403, the letter, while highly prejudicial to Carter's case, is not unfairly prejudicial because it bears directly on his credibility, which is a proper, not an improper, basis for the factfinder's decision.
Dissenting - Gibbons, J.
Yes, the admission of the letter was a reversible error. The majority relies on an incomplete version of the facts and constructs admissibility arguments that the appellees themselves did not make. The letter, written six months after the alleged incident, is inherently ambiguous and could have an innocent explanation. The Magistrate committed a critical error by admitting the letter while simultaneously refusing Carter's request to call the letter's recipient as a witness to explain its context. This procedural unfairness prevented a proper determination of the letter's meaning and probative value, making its admission and the heavy reliance upon it fundamentally flawed.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of key evidence rules, particularly FRE 404(b) and 608(b). It establishes that direct evidence of a plan, such as a party's own written words, is not subject to the same foundational requirements as circumstantial evidence of a plan inferred from a series of other acts. More impactfully, it carves out a crucial exception to the FRE 608(b) ban on extrinsic evidence: the prohibition does not apply when the witness being impeached admits to the underlying conduct (here, writing the letter). This holding provides a clear pathway for introducing damaging documents on cross-examination so long as the witness authenticates them, affecting litigation strategy in cases where a witness's credibility is central to the dispute.
Unlock the full brief for Carter v. Hewitt