Yvon Wagner v. County of Maricopa, 706 F.3d 942

Eric Vogel suffered from mental illness and died of acute cardiac arrhythmia after jail dress-out procedures in Maricopa County; Yvon Wagner, as Vogel’s estate representative, sued the County and Sheriff Arpaio under §1983 and related statutes; district court in limine rulings barred key testimony on Vogel’s statements and pink underwear, limiting medical testimony; Vogel’s sister Yvon Wagner sought to testify about Vogel’s state of mind and perceived events, including alleged rape and the pink underwear; the jury verdict favored defendants, and the estate appeals arguing evidentiary errors and closing argument restrictions; the court reverses and remands for a new trial

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wagner’s testimony was admissible hearsay under Rule 803(3).	Wagner’s statements show Vogel’s state of mind and impact, not truth of the incident.	Wagner’s statements are hearsay and not admissible to prove Vogel’s beliefs.	Exclusion proper; Wagner’s testimony was hearsay not properly admitted
Whether Wagner’s statements fit Rule 803(3)’s state-of-mind exception.	Statements show contemporaneous Vogel state of mind.	Statements were made after the fact and were not contemporaneous; not admissible under 803(3).	District court did not abuse discretion; statements failed contemporaneity requirement
Whether the pink underwear references were properly excluded.	Pink underwear evidence shows punitive jail conditions and impact on Vogel’s state of mind.	Color evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial; not properly before the court.	Properly excluded; the ruling stood
Whether the district court abused its discretion in limiting closing arguments.	Estate had right to rebuttal under local rules and due process.	Closing restrictions were discretionary and did not violate rights.	District court did not abuse discretion; no right to rebuttal established
Standard of review for evidentiary rulings and hearsay determinations.	Hearsay rulings should be reviewed de novo.	Abuse-of-discretion standard applies to evidentiary rulings.	Court adopts significantly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; de novo review not required for all issues

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (due process evaluation of jail conditions)
Emmert v. United States, 829 F.2d 805 (9th Cir. 1987) (state-of-mind exception limits to current condition rather than reasons for belief)
Ponticelli, 622 F.2d 985 (9th Cir. 1980) (contemporaneity requirement for state-of-mind statements)
Fontenot, 14 F.3d 1364 (9th Cir. 1994) (limits on reasons for fear under Rule 803(3))
Stinson, 647 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussion of hearsay rule construction and discretion)
Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc; two-step abuse-of-discretion standard)