Carlden Trotter v. David Shipley, 997 F.3d 819

Plaintiff Carlden Trotter alleged that after he assaulted a prison guard, four guards (including David Shipley and Scott McFarland) used excessive force while moving him and then denied him adequate medical care; he sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Three guards (including Shipley) testified at trial that they accidentally tripped in the snow and did not strike Trotter; Trotter testified to the assaults; medical testimony described injuries but not how they occurred.
Trotter sought to admit a later Missouri DOC letter terminating Shipley for using a closed fist on an inmate (and mentioning a threatening statement about his estranged wife) and a report showing a supervisor never requested security-camera footage; he also wanted to call that supervisor.
At a pretrial hearing the district court excluded the termination letter and the investigative report under Fed. R. Evid. 403 and denied an instruction telling the jury to treat allegations against nonparticipating guard McFarland as true.
The jury ultimately found for the guards; on appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed, upholding the district court’s Rule 403 rulings and refusal to give Trotter’s proposed adverse-inference instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Shipley termination letter	The letter is relevant and probative of Shipley’s propensity to use excessive force and impeach him	Letter is unduly prejudicial, invites verdict on improper basis, and suggests other-bad-acts inference	Excluded under Rule 403; not an abuse of discretion to bar it
Admissibility of supervisor report / failure to request security footage	Report shows a coverup and bias in investigation; relevant to credibility and completeness of evidence	Report would create a sideshow, confuse issues, waste time, and has little probative value	Excluded under Rule 403 as confusing and a red herring; district court’s limitation was not an abuse of discretion
Cross-examination on circumstances of Shipley’s termination	Trotter sought to cross-examine Shipley about termination facts to impeach him	Cross-examination would be unduly prejudicial and invite unfair inference	Prohibition on such cross-examination sustained under Rule 403
Adverse-inference instruction re nonparticipating guard McFarland	Requested instruction would require jury to accept McFarland’s alleged misconduct as true for purposes of verdict	Instruction would improperly bind jury to facts about one defendant when judging others and unfairly prejudice remaining defendants	Denial of the proposed instruction affirmed; would have misstated law and prejudiced other defendants

United States v. Zierke, 618 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2010) (courts owe great deference to district court Rule 403 balancing)
Walker v. Kane, 885 F.3d 535 (8th Cir. 2018) (definition and effect of unfair prejudice under Rule 403)
Davis v. White, 858 F.3d 1155 (8th Cir. 2017) (affirming exclusion of evidence about failure to preserve video where excessive force was central issue)
Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Murley, 703 F.3d 456 (8th Cir. 2013) (jury instruction must be accurate and neutral)
Morris v. Union Pac. R.R., 373 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2004) (adverse-inference instruction is powerful and cannot be used offensively against others)
McMillian/McMillian, Inc. v. Monticello Ins., 116 F.3d 319 (8th Cir. 1997) (distinguishing permitted instruction that binds a nonparticipating party from using that fact against other defendants)