Tete Smith v. Bank of America, NA
443 F. App'x 808
4th Cir.2011Background
- Smith sued Bank of America under FMLA and Title VII alleging discrimination and retaliation.
- A three-day trial ended with a jury verdict in favor of Bank of America.
- Smith argues two witnesses testified falsely and that a traffic ticket evidence was improperly admitted.
- Appellate review centers on jury credibility and standard of evidence-admissibility rulings, not credibility determinations themselves.
- Court analyzes Rule 404(b) admissibility as impeachment and cites abuse-of-discretion review; result: evidence properly admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged false testimony warrants reversal | Smith contends witnesses were false and misleading. | Bank argues credibility lies with jury; no basis for reversal. | No relief; credibility is for the jury. |
| Whether traffic ticket evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) | Ticket evidence should not be admitted to impeach bias. | Evidence is admissible for impeachment purposes under Rule 404(b). | Admissible as impeachment evidence. |
| What standard governs review of evidentiary rulings under Rule 404(b) | Not explicitly argued; focus on admissibility claims. | Abuse-of-discretion standard applies. | Abuse-of-discretion standard governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2006) (jury credibility governs weight of testimony)
- United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991 (4th Cir. 1997) (Rule 404(b) prerequisites and balancing prejudice and probative value)
- United States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion in evidentiary rulings; prejudice considerations)
- United States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2004) (relevance and reliability required for Rule 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Sanchez, 118 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 1997) (Rule 404(b) inclusionary principle)