Emma Spring v. Timothy R. Bradford
243 Ariz. 167
| Ariz. | 2017Background
- Emma Spring sued chiropractor Timothy Bradford for alleged negligent cervical spine injury; both sides retained two expert witnesses and exchanged Rule 26.1 disclosures and depositions.
- Before trial began the court (by agreement) invoked Arizona Rule of Evidence 615 to exclude prospective witnesses from hearing other testimony.
- During defendant’s case, defense counsel provided transcripts of Spring’s experts’ trial testimony to two defense experts, violating the court’s sequestration order.
- The trial court found violations but no bad faith, required Spring to show actual prejudice, gave curative jury instructions, allowed cross-examination about the disclosures, and denied motions to strike/preclude the defense experts.
- The jury verdict favored Bradford; the trial court and court of appeals denied Spring’s new-trial motion. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review of two statewide issues and affirmed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Spring's Argument | Bradford's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 615 prohibit providing transcripts of prior trial testimony to sequestered witnesses? | Such provision violates sequestration and frustrates Rule 615’s purpose. | Not directly argued otherwise; court asked to treat experts differently. | Yes — giving transcripts to sequestered witnesses violates Rule 615. |
| When a sequestration order is violated in civil cases, should prejudice be presumed? | Violations should create a presumption of prejudice (relying on Roberts). | No presumption; plaintiff must show prejudice; courts have discretion to craft remedies. | No blanket presumption in civil cases; presumption only in limited, substantial violations that make prejudice impossible to assess; otherwise plaintiff must show an objective likelihood of prejudice. |
| Are expert witnesses automatically exempt from Rule 615 under 615(c)? | Rule 615(c) requires the witness’s presence (or reading) to be essential, but experts are not automatically exempt. | Experts are generally essential in malpractice cases and thus should be exempt. | Experts are not automatically exempt; a party must timely show an expert’s presence (or reading testimony) is essential before allowing an exception. |
| What remedies are appropriate for Rule 615 violations? | Severe remedies (striking testimony/new trial) may be required. | Trial court has discretion to tailor remedies short of striking if no demonstrated prejudice. | Remedies are discretionary: possible sanctions include cross-examination, jury instructions, contempt, or preclusion; trial courts must tailor relief based on willfulness, scope, prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ell, 718 F.2d 291 (9th Cir.) (purpose of sequestration is to prevent tailoring and collusion)
- State v. Roberts, 126 Ariz. 92 (Ariz. 1980) (failure to honor an exclusion request presumed prejudicial in criminal context)
- Kosidlo v. Kosidlo, 125 Ariz. 32 (Ariz. App.) (civil party must show prejudice for sequestration error)
- State v. Perkins, 141 Ariz. 278 (Ariz. 1984) (distinguishes denial-of-request cases from witness-violation cases; no presumption when witnesses violate an invoked rule)
- Leavy v. Parsell, 188 Ariz. 69 (Ariz. 1997) (prejudice may be inferred where counsel’s deliberate misconduct makes prejudice impossible to measure)
- American Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., 239 Ariz. 151 (Ariz. 2016) (trial judge must assess whether error affected substantial rights and whether prejudice must be conclusively presumed)
- United States v. Jimenez, 780 F.2d 975 (11th Cir.) (reading transcripts can violate sequestration)
- United States v. Seschillie, 310 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir.) (experts are not automatically exempt from Rule 615)
- Jones, 185 Ariz. 471 (Ariz. 1996) (trial court has discretion in remedying sequestration violations)