Coble v. City of White House
634 F.3d 865 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
On a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff's testimony is not 'blatantly contradicted' by an audio recording merely because the recording lacks sounds that would corroborate the testimony; such an absence of sound is not sufficiently conclusive to justify disregarding the plaintiff's version of events without a trial.
Facts:
- After observing Jerry T. Coble's truck cross the fog line three times, Officer Curtis Carney initiated a traffic stop.
- Coble did not stop immediately, instead driving to his home and pulling into his driveway.
- At his home, Coble argued with Officer Carney, ignored his commands, and began walking toward his house.
- Officer Carney deployed a chemical agent and performed a take-down maneuver on Coble, during which Coble sustained an open fracture of his right ankle.
- After a struggle, Officer Carney, with assistance, handcuffed Coble, at which point Coble ceased all resistance.
- Coble alleges that after he was handcuffed, Officer Carney forced him to walk several steps on his severely broken ankle and then dropped him face-first onto the concrete.
- Officer Carney alleges that after they took a few steps, Coble stated his leg was broken, and Carney immediately sat him down.
- A blood sample taken from Coble later indicated a blood alcohol level of 0.16.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerry T. Coble filed a § 1983 lawsuit against Officer Carney and the City of White House in federal district court, alleging excessive force.
- Officer Carney and the City filed motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Officer Carney, finding that Coble's testimony was 'blatantly contradicted' by an audio recording from Officer Carney's microphone.
- The district court concluded that Officer Carney was also entitled to qualified immunity and dismissed the case.
- Coble (appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Carney (appellee) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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 an audio recording that fails to capture certain sounds, such as screams or a body hitting the ground, 'blatantly contradict' a plaintiff's sworn testimony about those events for the purpose of granting summary judgment under the standard set in Scott v. Harris?
Opinions:
Majority - Bell, District Judge
No, an audio recording's silence on certain events does not blatantly contradict a plaintiff's testimony about those events to the extent required to grant summary judgment. While the principle from Scott v. Harris allows a court to disregard testimony that is blatantly contradicted by objective evidence in the record, the absence of sound on an audio recording is not as conclusive as contradictory visual evidence from a videotape. The court reasoned that many factors could affect what sounds are recorded, such as the microphone's location, whether it was covered, or the volume of the sound itself. Therefore, the lack of corroborating sound for Coble's claims of screaming and being dropped did not make his testimony so 'utterly discredited' that no reasonable jury could believe it. Because a genuine dispute of material fact remained, summary judgment was inappropriate.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the application of the Supreme Court's standard in Scott v. Harris. It clarifies that while objective evidence like recordings can be used to resolve factual disputes at the summary judgment stage, not all recordings are created equal. The court distinguishes between evidence that affirmatively contradicts testimony (like a video showing the opposite of what a plaintiff claims) and evidence that merely fails to corroborate it (like a silent audio tape). This decision serves as a crucial check on the power of trial courts to weigh evidence, reinforcing that credibility determinations and the resolution of ambiguous evidence are functions reserved for the jury, thereby protecting a litigant's right to a trial.
Unlock the full brief for Coble v. City of White House