Caron Spencer v. Craig McDonald
705 F. App'x 386
6th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Caron Spencer sued state troopers Craig McDonald and Jack Taeff for excessive force after an Inkster, Michigan traffic stop; jury found for defendants.
- At trial Spencer sought to impeach McDonald by asking about a prior, unrelated sexual-assault investigation and internal censure for poor deportment.
- The district court sustained objections and barred that line of questioning based on the parties’ joint final pretrial order and, alternatively, Rules 404(b) and 403.
- Spencer argued the trooper’s direct testimony about his education, military training, and law-enforcement roles opened the door to character impeachment about the investigation.
- The district court treated those biographical statements as non-character, limited prior-discipline evidence to use-of-force issues per the pretrial order, and excluded the sexual-assault investigation as irrelevant or unduly prejudicial.
- Spencer also asserted the deposition could be used under Rule 613(b) as prior-inconsistent statements, but the court found no clear basis for impeachment and applied Rule 403 balancing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforcement of joint final pretrial order | Pretrial order did not bar evidence because rape can involve force | Parties agreed to exclude unrelated discipline; order limits discipline evidence to use-of-force issues | Court enforced the order; no manifest-injustice to modify it — no abuse of discretion |
| Whether McDonald "opened the door" to character impeachment | McDonald’s biographical testimony showed general good character, so Spencer could rebut with the sexual-assault investigation | Testimony was biographical, not character evidence; plaintiff did not elicit or argue exemplary character | Court held testimony was not character evidence and did not open the door; exclusion proper |
| Admissibility under Rule 404(b) | Evidence probative to show propensity for excessive force because of prior accusation | 404(b) prohibits propensity evidence; plaintiff didn’t claim a proper non-propensity purpose | Court excluded the investigation as improper propensity evidence under Rule 404(b) |
| Rule 403 and Rule 613(b) balancing / prior inconsistent statement impeachment | Deposition and prior investigations could impeach credibility; Rule 613(b) allows extrinsic impeachment if requirements met | Even if Rule 613 met, inflammatory and minimally probative sexual-assault detail unfairly prejudicial; exclusion permissible under Rule 403 | Court found no abuse of discretion in excluding the evidence under Rule 403; Rule 613 claim unpersuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- Burley v. Gagacki, 834 F.3d 606 (6th Cir.) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings—abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Mack, 808 F.3d 1074 (6th Cir.) (appellate review test: no clear error of judgment)
- Clarksville-Montgomery Cty. Sch. Sys. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 925 F.2d 993 (6th Cir.) (purpose and binding effect of pretrial orders under Rule 16)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (character evidence is disfavored)
- Helfrich v. Lakeside Park Police Dep’t, [citation="497 F. App'x 500"] (6th Cir.) (when a party opens the door on character, opposing party may introduce rebuttal)
- United States v. Hardy, 643 F.3d 143 (6th Cir.) (Rule 404(b) requires proper non-propensity purpose for other-act evidence)
- Kuhn v. Washtenaw Cty., 709 F.3d 612 (6th Cir.) (arguments not raised in opening brief may be forfeited)