Henry Davis v. Michael White
858 F.3d 1155
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Early morning arrest (Sept. 20, 2009) of Henry M. Davis for DWI; an altercation occurred while he was taken to a cell and additional officers arrived. Davis alleges he was beaten while handcuffed; officers say he resisted and the force was defensive after he struck Officer White.
- Davis sustained a concussion and scalp laceration; EMTs and hospital personnel encountered him as uncooperative and belligerent; hospital photos were taken but he initially refused treatment.
- Jail surveillance recorded on daily tapes that began at 7:00 a.m.; because the incident occurred before 7:00 a.m., it was on the tape labeled 9/19/09. The communications supervisor (Sergeant Mudd) preserved only the tape labeled 9/20/09, and the relevant tape was likely recorded over.
- Pretrial and trial rulings at issue: district court denied Davis’s Batson challenge to the officers’ peremptory strike of the only remaining African-American venireperson; admitted hospital records; excluded racist emails authored by Mudd; and denied an adverse-inference jury instruction for spoliation.
- Jury returned verdict for the officers; Davis appealed the pretrial evidentiary and jury-selection rulings and the denial of the spoliation instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson challenge to peremptory strike of sole remaining African-American juror | Davis: strike was racially motivated; prima facie case established | Officers: offered race-neutral reason—juror’s security/nursing-home background might bias her to compare force | Court: affirmed denial; district court credited race-neutral explanation and Davis failed to carry burden |
| Admission of hospital records describing Davis as belligerent/noncompliant | Davis: records were improper character evidence and double hearsay, prejudicial | Officers: similar testimony and EMT records already established same conduct; records admissible or cumulative | Court: admission harmless error if any; records cumulative of other evidence and did not substantially influence verdict |
| Exclusion of racist emails by jail supervisor (Mudd) | Davis: emails show Mudd’s racial bias and undermine his explanations for not preserving tape | Officers: Mudd was not present for use-of-force incident; emails have limited relevance and pose unfair prejudice to officers | Court: affirmed exclusion under Rule 403 — minimal probative value and potential unfair prejudice; limiting instruction inadequate |
| Denial of adverse-inference instruction for spoliation of surveillance tape | Davis: Mudd received preservation requests and intentionally preserved wrong tape; inference warranted | Officers: Mudd testified it never occurred to him to preserve the earlier tape; failure was negligent, not intentional | Court: affirmed denial — no finding of intentional destruction; adverse inference requires intent to suppress truth |
Key Cases Cited
- Kahle v. Leonard, 563 F.3d 736 (8th Cir. 2009) (describes Batson three-step framework and standard of review)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008) (trial court’s demeanor credibility determinations central to Batson third step)
- Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (2006) (burden of persuasion on Batson challenger)
- Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- McDowell v. Blankenship, 759 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2014) (cumulative evidence doctrine and harmlessness)
- Wilson v. City of Des Moines, 442 F.3d 637 (8th Cir. 2006) (improper cumulative evidence harmless)
- United States v. Battle, 774 F.3d 504 (8th Cir. 2014) (deference to district court Rule 403 determinations)
- Burris v. Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co., 787 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sanctions and jury instructions)
- Acciona Windpower N. Am., LLC v. City of W. Branch, Iowa, 847 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing district court sanctions decisions)
- Morris v. Union Pac. R.R., 373 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2004) (adverse inference for spoliation requires intentional destruction; district court may infer intent via circumstantial evidence)