Robert Fathera v. Smyrna Police Department
646 F. App'x 395 (2016)
Rule of Law:
A new trial is not warranted for alleged evidentiary errors unless the moving party establishes prejudice, meaning it is more probable than not that the error materially affected the verdict, and the absence of a statement is not hearsay unless the declarant intended it as an assertion.
Facts:
- On November 9, 2009, Robert Wayne Fathera received a phone call from Darrell Lambert asking for a ride to sell pills.
- Fathera, his girlfriend Katie Black, Lambert, and Lambert's girlfriend drove in Black's white Ford Mustang, stopping to buy a 12-pack of beer, of which Fathera drank one to three.
- The group arrived at Fate Sanders Marina, where Lambert met pill customers, but after a brief discussion, Lambert ordered Black to leave, and the customers began following the Mustang.
- In a subdivision, as Fathera was exiting the Mustang, Lambert bumped into the door and knocked him to the ground, after which Fathera got into the driver’s seat and drove away with Lambert.
- Officer Gary Schoon received information that the suspects in the white Mustang were wanted for robbery and attempted to stop the vehicle, but Fathera fled, leading Schoon on a 13-minute high-speed pursuit through two counties during rush-hour traffic.
- During the pursuit, Fathera’s Mustang sideswiped another motorist on the ramp to I-24, breaking the mirrors off both vehicles, and he later made a quick exit off I-24, cutting across several lanes of traffic.
- Fathera continued to flee until he reached the parking lot of a rock quarry, where Officer Schoon stopped on a small bridge leading into the area.
- Fathera testified that Schoon approached with his gun out, screaming orders, and after Fathera complied by lying on his stomach, Schoon jumped on his back, handcuffed him, and repeatedly struck his face, causing facial fractures and requiring stitches.
- Schoon testified that Fathera did not immediately comply, instead walking away and then crouching in a “modified push-up position,” prompting Schoon to kneel on his back and apply a “brachial stun” to subdue him, denying intentional striking.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Wayne Fathera sued Officer Gary Schoon in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force during his arrest.
- A jury in the district court found in favor of Schoon, concluding he did not use excessive force.
- Fathera moved for a new trial in the district court, alleging that impermissible hearsay and character evidence tainted his case and that the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence.
- The district court denied Fathera's motion for a new trial.
- Fathera (Plaintiff-Appellant) appealed the district court's denial of a new trial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, reasserting only his hearsay and character evidence claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Robert Wayne Fathera's motion for a new trial, which was based on claims that the trial was tainted by the erroneous admission of hearsay and character evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Griffin, Circuit Judge
No, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Robert Wayne Fathera's motion for a new trial because he failed to establish that the alleged evidentiary errors constituted actual error in the first instance or, even if they did, that they prejudiced him by materially affecting the jury's verdict. The court determined that a new trial is justified only if the original trial was unfair and the moving party suffered prejudice, meaning it is "more probable than not that the error materially affected the verdict." Regarding Fathera's hearsay claims, the court found no error in admitting testimony from Sergeant Allen and Officer Gant. Allen's testimony that he found no evidence of Metro officers intervening or filing excessive force reports, and Gant's testimony that he did not recall any conversations or reports about Schoon's alleged excessive force, were not hearsay. This is because hearsay requires an out-of-court "statement" offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and non-verbal conduct or an absence of statements is only a "statement" if intended as an assertion. Fathera presented no evidence that the officers intended their lack of reporting or comments as an assertion. Therefore, these claims did not involve an error in the first instance. Concerning Fathera's character evidence claims, the court noted that many were unpreserved or waived. Fathera's counsel "opened the door" to his extensive criminal history and details of the car accident during opening statements and through stipulations. Fathera also waived objections to Schoon’s “Officer of the Year” award and his own jail medical records showing intoxication by explicitly denying objections or failing to properly preserve them. For remaining unpreserved claims, Fathera failed to identify specific evidentiary rules violated or explain how his substantial rights were affected, rendering them waived due to perfunctory argumentation. Even if errors occurred, the court found no prejudice because the record contained ample other admissible evidence challenging Fathera's credibility and sobriety, including his counsel's disclosures, his admitted drug/alcohol abuse, prior DUI, and evidence of beer cans in the Mustang. The jury was properly instructed to consider only admissible evidence. Given that "some competent, credible evidence" supported the verdict, the district court's denial of a new trial was not an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This case highlights the stringent requirements for securing a new trial based on alleged evidentiary errors, particularly the high bar of demonstrating prejudice by showing that errors more probably than not materially affected the verdict. It clarifies the definition of 'hearsay' under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c), emphasizing that the absence of a statement or non-assertive conduct does not constitute hearsay. The decision also reinforces the 'opening the door' doctrine and the critical importance of preserving objections at trial, demonstrating that a party's strategic choices or failures to object can preclude appellate review of even potentially improper evidence. This ruling serves as a reminder to trial attorneys about the procedural pitfalls of waiving or inadequately preserving evidentiary challenges and the robust deference appellate courts grant to jury verdicts supported by substantial admissible evidence.
