Terry Farr v. Village of New Haven
673 F. App'x 476
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- DEA Agent Dale LaBombard obtained a warrant after confidential-source and informant-controlled buys and led a multi-agent June 9, 2010 search of Terry Farr’s home.
- Farr and LaBombard offered conflicting accounts of the arrest; Farr alleged force causing wrist injury and complained cuffs were too tight; LaBombard disputed those facts.
- The district court granted summary judgment on many claims; only Farr’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim against LaBombard proceeded to trial.
- Before trial Farr moved to exclude evidence of prior arrests, prior controlled buys, and details of the underlying drug investigation; the court allowed only limited evidence about the existence/purpose of the warrant and refused detailed pre-search drug-buy evidence.
- At trial defense counsel repeatedly referenced Farr’s prior plea/drug evidence; Farr objected only to two instances (one sustained with a curative instruction), and did not contemporaneously object to several other references.
- The jury returned a verdict for LaBombard; Farr appealed, arguing counsel’s repeated violations of the evidentiary rulings required a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pretrial motion in limine preserved failure-to-object evidentiary errors for appeal | Farr: motion in limine preserved issues; court’s rulings should prevent those references | LaBombard: motion in limine does not substitute for contemporaneous objections; many references were unpreserved | Court: where district rulings were not explicit/definitive and objections were not made, review is for plain error; Farr failed to show plain error affecting substantial rights |
| Whether unobjected references to prior drug activity/plea require a new trial under plain-error review | Farr: repeated references were plain, prejudicial, and biased jury | LaBombard: references were not preserved and many were permissible context; harmless at worst | Court: Farr did not demonstrate plain error or that substantial rights were affected; no new trial |
| Whether the two preserved objections warranted mistrial/new trial | Farr: two objections (one sustained with instruction) demonstrate prejudice warranting new trial | LaBombard: Farr waived additional motions and any error was cured by instruction; trial overall fair | Court: curative instruction and sustaining of one objection cured error; two incidents over four days insufficient to show unfair trial or seriously erroneous result |
| Standard for granting new trial based on counsel misconduct | Farr: misconduct influenced verdict, meeting new-trial standards | LaBombard: conduct did not create reasonable probability of influence; case not close enough | Court: applied abuse-of-discretion standard considering frequency, relevance, curative action, case strength; no reasonable probability verdict was influenced; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kelly, 204 F.3d 652 (6th Cir. 2000) (motion in limine does not necessarily preserve evidentiary objections for appeal)
- United States v. Brawner, 173 F.3d 966 (6th Cir. 1999) (preservation requires contemporaneous objection when court’s ruling is qualified or conditional)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard for unpreserved errors)
- United States v. Pierce, 62 F.3d 818 (6th Cir. 1995) (new-trial denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Balsley v. LFP, Inc., 691 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2012) (factors for new trial based on prejudicial counsel conduct)
- Holmes v. City of Massillon, 78 F.3d 1041 (6th Cir. 1996) (grounds for new trial: verdict against weight of evidence, excessive damages, or trial unfairness)
- Mich. First Credit Union v. CUMIS Ins. Soc’y, Inc., 641 F.3d 240 (6th Cir. 2011) (totality-of-circumstances test for prejudicial comments)
- Strickland v. Owens Corning, 142 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 1998) (reasonable probability standard for setting aside verdict due to counsel misconduct)