Maurice Walker v. Dale White
885 F.3d 535
8th Cir.2018Background
- Maurice Walker (inmate) received cellmate Jerome Nash on July 3, 2012; Walker told officers he feared living with Nash and six days later Nash raped him. The rape was later stipulated at trial.
- Walker sued officers Dale White and Catherine Amonds under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure-to-protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; a jury returned a verdict for the officers. Walker appealed on evidentiary grounds.
- Pretrial, the officers moved to exclude references to Officer White’s disciplinary file; the district court granted the motion under Rule 403 balancing. Walker sought to cross-examine White under Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) about a discipline incident involving derogatory comments and alleged untruthfulness.
- The district court limited Walker’s ability to cross-examine White about the disciplinary incidents, finding unfair prejudice outweighed probative value; Walker preserved at least one proffered incident for appeal but not a second incident.
- At trial, testimony focused on whether officers knew of a substantial risk of serious harm. Walker testified he told officers he felt threatened; officers (including White and Amonds) denied recollection or said Walker did not express fear. Officer Douglas Baker testified he paired Walker and Nash because Walker had been aggressive with prior cellmates; Walker objected under relevance and Rule 412 but the court admitted the testimony.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse discretion in excluding the proposed Rule 608(b) cross-examination and that admission of Baker’s testimony (even if erroneous) was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excluding cross-examination of Officer White about prior disciplinary incident (Rule 608(b)) | Walker: prior discipline showed White’s character for untruthfulness and was admissible to impeach credibility. | Officers: incident was unfairly prejudicial, irrelevant to truthfulness, and would confuse jury. | District court did not abuse discretion; probative value was limited and unfair prejudice/confusion outweighed it. |
| Preservation of second disciplinary-incident claim | Walker: appellate consideration warranted for both incidents in file. | Officers: second incident was not raised at trial; issue not preserved. | Not preserved; plain-error review applied and no plain error found. |
| Admission of Baker’s testimony about Walker’s past aggression toward cellmates (relevance / Rule 412) | Walker: testimony irrelevant and impermissibly injected sexual-history/stereotyping under Rule 412; highly prejudicial. | Officers: testimony explained cell assignment decision; relevant to what officers knew or should have known. | Any error in admitting that testimony was harmless because it had little impact on key credibility disputes and the rape was stipulated. |
| Cumulative prejudicial-effect claim | Walker: multiple evidentiary errors cumulatively prejudiced his right to a fair trial. | Officers: each ruling was within trial court discretion and harmless cumulatively. | Cumulative-error doctrine not applied; no substantial prejudice shown, so claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitson v. Stone Cty. Jail, 602 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2010) (Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect requires deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm)
- Davis v. White, 858 F.3d 1155 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for admission/exclusion of evidence)
- United States v. Condon, 720 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2013) (deference to district court on Rule 403 exclusions)
- United States v. Alston, 626 F.3d 397 (8th Cir. 2010) (limits on Rule 608(b) cross-examination; risk of mini-trial on peripheral matters)
- United States v. Beal, 430 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005) (Rule 403 may bar otherwise admissible Rule 608(b) evidence)
- King v. Ahrens, 16 F.3d 265 (8th Cir. 1994) (Rule 403 balancing integral to Rule 608(b) analysis)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (unfair prejudice may arise from generalizing earlier bad acts into propensity)
- Whitmore v. United States, 359 F.3d 609 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (permitting broad impeachment where witness was sole link to alleged offense; distinguished on facts)