Michael Holmes v. Bobby Lee Garrett
895 F.3d 993
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- In 2006 Michael Holmes was convicted in federal court for crack distribution and firearms offenses based on a 2003 search at 5894 Cates Ave.; convictions were later vacated after officer misconduct investigations and the government declined to retry. Holmes then sued officers Bobby Garrett and Shell Sharp under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (conspiracy to violate civil rights) and asserted Missouri claims for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment.
- The district court dismissed claims against the Police Board but allowed claims against Garrett and Sharp to proceed; a jury in 2016 returned verdicts for Holmes and awarded $2.5 million. The officers appealed.
- Key disputed factual points: officers’ account of surveillance, apparent hand-to-hand transactions, consent to search from Holmes’s grandmother, and items recovered (drugs, scales, firearms, mail); Holmes’s account that he was a nonresident visitor who signed a property-release form and was later arrested on a warrant.
- Evidentiary disputes on appeal: exclusion of Holmes’s 1995 arrest/1996 Alford plea, admissibility of testimony by former prosecutor Hal Goldsmith and police-practices expert Dr. Angela Wingo, and scope of permissible impeachment.
- Legal claims challenged as insufficient: § 1983 conspiracy (requiring an agreement and overt act) and Missouri malicious prosecution/false imprisonment (requiring instigation).
- Jury-instruction challenges: (1) circumstantial-evidence/conspiracy instruction, (2) definition of “instigate” for malicious prosecution, and (3) instruction permitting past and reasonably likely future damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Holmes) | Defendant's Argument (Garrett/Sharp) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Holmes’s 1995 arrest and 1996 Alford plea (Rule 404(b) / 608) | Exclude prior bad acts; Holmes’s state of mind is not the central issue; prior acts would be unfair propensity evidence | Admit to show Holmes’s knowledge/intent and to impeach credibility based on prior admission and Garrett’s earlier testimony | Affirmed exclusion: prior conviction was propensity evidence not relevant to officers’ conduct; 608(b) not satisfied; no abuse of discretion |
| Admissibility of testimony by Hal Goldsmith and Dr. Angela Wingo | Allow Goldsmith limited to conviction information; admit Wingo as expert to explain police practices and consequences of departures | Testimony cumulative, irrelevant, improper expert/legal conclusion, Wingo unqualified as non-officer | Affirmed admission: Goldsmith’s limited explanation lawful and not prejudicial; Wingo qualified as police-practices expert and her testimony about standards was relevant and properly limited |
| Sufficiency of evidence of § 1983 conspiracy and state-law instigation (malicious prosecution/false imprisonment) | Evidence shows officers conspired and Garrett instigated arrest/prosecution (surveillance, planning meeting, presence at arrest, form signed) | Insufficient evidence linking Garrett to a conspiracy or to instigating arrest/prosecution; joint investigation alone insufficient | Verdict upheld: viewing evidence favorably to Holmes, reasonable juror could infer meeting of minds and Garrett’s instigation; sufficiency satisfied |
| Jury instructions challenged (conspiracy circumstantial-evidence, definition of “instigate,” future damages) | Instructions correctly stated law and were supported by Missouri practice and evidence (medical corroboration for future damages) | Instructions misstated burden, lowered proof, or improperly allowed future damages | Affirmed: instructions were correct statements of federal and Missouri law and did not prejudice defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Der v. Connolly, 666 F.3d 1120 (8th Cir.) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- Vasquez v. Colores, 648 F.3d 648 (8th Cir.) (prejudice burden on appellant for evidentiary error)
- Reed v. Malone’s Mech., Inc., 765 F.3d 900 (8th Cir.) (Rule 404(b) principles)
- United States v. Turner, 583 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir.) (discussion of mere-presence defense in criminal context)
- United States v. Oaks, 606 F.3d 530 (8th Cir.) (criminal context on mental-state issues and 404(b))
- Bonenberger v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dep’t, 810 F.3d 1103 (8th Cir.) (elements and proof for § 1983 conspiracy)
- White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806 (8th Cir.) (conspiracy instruction and circumstantial proof)
- Reasonover v. St. Louis Cty., 447 F.3d 569 (8th Cir.) (conspiracy requires specific facts showing agreement)
- Livers v. Schenck, 700 F.3d 340 (8th Cir.) (joint investigation insufficient for unlawful conspiracy)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (U.S.) (absolute immunity for testimony in official proceedings)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S.) (trial-court gatekeeping on expert admissibility)
- Luckert v. Dodge Cty., 684 F.3d 808 (8th Cir.) (standard for reviewing JMOL)
- Morse v. S. Union Co., 174 F.3d 917 (8th Cir.) (deference to jury verdict on sufficiency of evidence)