Gregory Warger v. Randy Shauers
721 F.3d 606
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- On Aug. 4, 2006, Warger (motorcyclist) and Shauers (truck with camper) collided; Warger suffered severe injuries and sued for negligence and damages.
- First trial resulted in a mistrial after defense counsel violated an in limine order barring experts from giving legal opinions about South Dakota traffic law.
- During the second trial defense counsel again asked an expert whether Warger had to yield the right-of-way; court sustained the objection, excused the jury, gave a curative instruction, denied Warger’s mistrial motion, and later instructed the jury to disregard the question.
- The jury returned a verdict for Shauers; afterwards a juror submitted an affidavit alleging the foreperson injected personal experiences and sympathy into deliberations, influencing the verdict.
- Warger moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing (1) the in limine violation required a mistrial, (2) insufficient evidence supported the verdict, and (3) juror misconduct and improper exclusion of expert testimony on traffic-law violations warranted relief.
- The district court denied relief; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding no prejudicial error from the in limine violation, sufficient conflicting evidence supporting the verdict, Rule 606(b) barred the juror affidavit, and the exclusion of expert legal opinions was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a second violation of the in limine order required a mistrial | Warger: the question injected inadmissible legal opinion key to defense and was prejudicial | Shauers: court promptly sustained objection and gave curative instruction; no prejudice | Court: no abuse of discretion; curative instruction and lack of further testimony meant no prejudicial error |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for defendant's verdict | Warger: inconsistencies and expert reconstruction supported only his version | Shauers: conflicting testimony and evidence allowed reasonable juror verdict for defendant | Court: de novo review; reasonable jurors could credit Shauers; verdict stands |
| Whether juror affidavit alleging foreperson bias can be considered to attack verdict | Warger: affidavit shows extraneous/prejudicial information or dishonest voir dire, warranting new trial | Shauers: affidavit concerns internal deliberations and juror impressions, barred by Rule 606(b) | Court: affidavit barred by Rule 606(b); personal experiences are not "extraneous"; cannot use it to overturn verdict or show voir dire dishonesty |
| Whether the court erred in excluding expert testimony opining that conduct violated S.D. law | Warger: expert should be allowed to say drivers’ conduct violated the rules of the road | Shauers: such legal opinion was barred and would rely on an inadmissible/unreliable officer report | Court: no abuse of discretion; expert opinion would be based on unreliable inadmissible report and court instructed jury on law itself |
Key Cases Cited
- Pullman v. Land O' Lakes, Inc., 262 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard for reviewing denial of mistrial for abuse of discretion)
- Black v. Shultz, 530 F.3d 702 (8th Cir. 2008) (in limine violation only warrants new trial if order specific, violation clear, and prejudicial)
- Russell v. Whirlpool Corp., 702 F.3d 450 (8th Cir. 2012) (curative instruction can cure in limine violations)
- Littleton v. McNeely, 562 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for judgment as a matter of law — evidence must point one way)
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1984) (test for voir dire dishonesty to obtain a new trial)
- Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1987) (Congress considered and rejected broader juror testimony exceptions; concerns about post-verdict scrutiny)
- Benally v. United States, 546 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2008) (rejecting use of juror testimony about deliberations to overturn verdict; follows Rule 606(b) strictness)
- United States v. Krall, 835 F.2d 711 (8th Cir. 1987) (distinguishing extraneous objective events from jurors’ subjective experiences under Rule 606(b))