J. B. Bohannon v. Howard A. Pegelow
652 F.2d 729, 8 Fed. R. Serv. 1530, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 11789 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, a lay witness who personally observed an event may offer opinion testimony regarding another person's mental state or motivation, as long as the opinion is rationally based on the witness's perception and helpful to the jury.
Facts:
- Howard Pegelow, a Milwaukee Vice Squad detective, was conducting an investigation into prostitution at the Ambassador Hotel.
- J. B. Bohannon, a Marquette University student, was visiting a fellow student, Julene Leatherman, in the hotel lobby.
- Bohannon and Leatherman observed Pegelow as he was working.
- After arresting a woman and her male companion upstairs, Pegelow came down to the lobby and arrested Bohannon.
- Pegelow alleged that Bohannon had offered to sell the sexual favors of Leatherman for thirty-five dollars.
- Bohannon maintained that he had only exchanged a brief greeting with the detective.
- The pandering charge against Bohannon was later dismissed, but Pegelow allegedly continued to investigate him and tamper with evidence.
- Approximately one week after Bohannon's arrest, the District Attorney’s Office initiated an investigation into Pegelow's conduct regarding this incident and others.
Procedural Posture:
- J. B. Bohannon filed a civil rights action against Officer Howard Pegelow in the United States District Court, alleging he was arrested without probable cause.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury found for Bohannon, concluding Pegelow had not acted in good faith and that his actions were wanton and malicious.
- The jury awarded Bohannon $10,000 in compensatory and $15,000 in punitive damages.
- Pegelow, the defendant-appellant, appealed the verdict and award to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 Federal Rule of Evidence 701 permit a lay witness who observed an arrest to offer an opinion that the arresting officer was motivated by racial prejudice?
Opinions:
Majority - William J. Campbell
Yes. Federal Rule of Evidence 701 permits lay opinion testimony concerning another person's mental state. The court reasoned that Rule 701 does not contain limitations on the subject matter of lay opinion testimony. The only requirements are that the opinion is rationally based on the witness's perception and is helpful to the jury. In this case, the witness, Julene Leatherman, personally observed the arrest, so her opinion about Officer Pegelow's motivation was based on her own perceptions and was helpful for the jury to determine a fact in issue. The court held that arguments about the factual basis for the opinion go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility, and can be explored through cross-examination.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the broad scope of Federal Rule of Evidence 701, affirming that lay witnesses are not barred from offering opinions on subjective matters like another person's mental state or motivation. It establishes that as long as the opinion is grounded in the witness's firsthand perception, its admissibility is largely within the trial court's discretion. The ruling shifts the focus from a categorical exclusion of such testimony to a reliance on cross-examination to expose any weaknesses, empowering juries to determine the testimony's ultimate weight and credibility. This interpretation favors the admissibility of evidence, impacting how parties can prove subjective elements like malice or discriminatory intent in future civil rights and other cases.
