Geunita M. HINKLE, Administratrix of the Estate of Bea Wilson, deceased, as Administratrix, and on her own behalf; Patricia L. Wilson, individually and for John Wilson and Adam Wilson, minor children, who sue by their mother and best friend; Bea Wilson, Jr.; Harold W. Wilson; Mildred J. Wilson; Harold R. Wilson; Gloria J. Norman, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. THE CITY OF CLARKSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA; Dan Boroff, individually and as The City Manager of the City of Clarksburg; City of Clarksburg Police Department; Thomas C. Durrett, individually, and as Chief of Clarksburg Police Department; L.L. Lake, a/k/a Lanny Lake, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer; John Walker, individually and as a Clarksburg Police Officer and Supervisory Officer; Ronald Alonso, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer; Clifford Floyd, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer and Supervisory Officer; Grant Smith, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer; Mark Waggamon, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer; Gary Lowther, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer, Supervisory Officer and Training Officer; Robert Starkey, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer and Training Officer; Larry Robey, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer and Training Officer; Raymond Mazza, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer and Training Officer; Charles Reich, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer and Training Officer; James Watkins, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer and Training Officer; Michael Brown, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer and Police Firearms Instructor; Joseph K. Luzader, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer and Firearms Instructor; John Doe; Richard Roe; Donald Doe; Robert Roe, Police Officers, Police Supervisory Officers, Police Training Officers and Police Firearms Instructors of the City of Clarksburg Police Department, the identity and number of whom is presently unknown to the plaintiffs, individually and in their official capacities; Irvin Sopher, M.D., individually and as The Chief Medical Examiner of The State of West Virginia Office of Medical Examinations; James L. Frost, M.D., individually and as the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner of the State of West Virginia Office of Medical Examinations, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 94-1925.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 7, 1995. Decided April 17, 1996.
81 F.3d 416
Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge RUSSELL wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge WILKINSON and Judge NIEMEYER joined.
OPINION
DONALD S. RUSSELL, Circuit Judge:
Bea Wilson was shot and killed by Clarksburg, West Virginia Police Officer Lake after a ten-minute standoff during which Wilson, who was intoxicated and armed with a shotgun, locked himself in his apartment and threatened to kill anyone who came through the door. Wilson‘s estate and family filed this civil rights suit against the City of Clarksburg and numerous police officers and government officials contending, inter alia, that Officer Lake used excessive force when he killed Wilson, and that the police officers subsequently conspired with government officials to cover-up the wrongdoing.
Appellants, Wilson‘s estate and family, filed this appeal from the district court‘s order entering judgment against them upon a partial grant of summary judgment and a jury verdict in their civil action. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
I.
In the early morning hours of January 25, 1990, Clarksburg police officers responded to a domestic violence call at Bea Wilson‘s apartment. Wilson was intoxicated and inside his apartment with his young son, Adam. Wilson armed himself with a shotgun and ammunition and threatened to kill anyone who came through the door. The officers took up position outside the apartment: Officer Alonso stood just outside the closed apartment door, while Officer Lake manned the stairs leading upstairs and Officer Smith covered the stair-landing near the front door of the building. Officer Floyd arrived at the scene and remained on the porch of the building. Officer Alonso attempted to negotiate with Wilson, who responded by allowing Adam to leave the apartment.
Because the apartment door remained partially open after Adam exited, Officer Lake could see Wilson in the apartment with the shotgun. When Wilson requested to speak with his wife, Officer Alonso told him that his wife was near the front door and would speak to him.
The dispute over what happened next forms the basis for this appeal. Appellants contend that Officer Lake unjustifiably fired a fatal bullet into Wilson‘s back. The police officers offer a different version, contending that Wilson began moving toward the open door with his right hand extended on the barrel of the shotgun holding several shells, while his left hand was on the trigger. As Wilson reached the threshold with his gun, Officer Lake ordered Wilson to stop and drop the gun. Wilson stopped walking toward the door, but he failed to drop his gun. Officer Lake again commanded Wilson to drop the gun; Wilson raised the shotgun as if to shoot, at which point Officer Lake fired one shot that grazed Wilson‘s arm, entered his chest, and exited his back. Wilson spun around from the force of the blow, and he fired his shotgun into a stuffed chair in the back of the room. Wilson fell face first away from the door; he was pronounced dead at the scene.
When Dr. Saoud, the County Coroner, arrived at the apartment, he initially noted that Wilson died from a bullet wound to the back. Doctor Saoud based this conclusion on the relative sizes of the wounds. He noted the chest wound was larger than the back wound, which normally indicates that the chest wound is an exit wound. Doctor Frost, the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, performed an autopsy and concluded that Wilson was shot in the chest. Doctor Frost based his conclusion, in part, on an examination of the fibers from Wilson‘s sweatshirt. Fibers sur-
Six days after the shooting, Officer Walker, the chief investigating officer for this shooting, removed Wilson‘s sweatshirt from the property room and threw it away in the city dumpster. Officer Walker contends the sweatshirt was covered with blood and was beginning to emit a foul-smelling odor. Although the sweatshirt was evidence of whether Wilson was shot in the chest or back, Officer Walker saw no reason to keep it.
Approximately seven months later, Appellants obtained a court order to exhume Wilson‘s body. Appellants hired Dr. Wecht, an independent medical examiner, to conduct a second autopsy and reach a conclusion about whether Wilson was shot in the chest or back. Doctor Wecht was unable to examine the chest wound, however, because the entire wound had been excised. Doctor Wecht testified that the chest wound was “obliterated by a puckered incision, ..., closed tightly by thick, white string.” Nonetheless, Dr. Wecht opined that Wilson was shot in the back.
Appellants’ lawsuit alleged a state claim for wrongful death, and various complaints of civil rights deprivations under
The district court dismissed most of Appellants’ claims at summary judgment, concluding that Appellants failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact concerning the existence of a conspiracy to obstruct justice, potential supervisor liability, or the inadequacy of the departmental training program. Appellants’ claims of excessive force and wrongful death proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict against Appellants on both counts; this appeal followed.
II.
We first consider Appellants’ claims that the district court incorrectly granted summary judgment on their claims of non-shooting officer liability, supervisory liability, inadequate training, conspiracy and denial of due process.
A. Non-shooting officer liability, supervisory liability and inadequate training
Appellants contend the non-shooting officers at the scene were independently liable for failing to prevent Officer Lake‘s use of excessive force. Complementary to this claim were Appellants’ contentions that the City was liable for providing its officers with inadequate training to handle the type of domestic situation they encountered at Wilson‘s apartment, and that Officer Floyd was liable as an acting supervisor at the scene.
We see no need to address the merits of these claims because all are derivative of Appellants’ claim that Officer Lake used excessive force against Wilson, which was rejected by a jury. In the absence of any underlying use of excessive force against Wilson, liability cannot be placed on either the non-shooting officers, a supervisor, or the City. See McLenagan v. Karnes, 27 F.3d 1002, 1008 (4th Cir.) (no general right to be protected from violence, even if from non-shooting officer‘s action or failure to act contributed to use of force, issue of liability mooted by finding that shooting officer did not use constitutionally excessive force), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 581, 130 L.Ed.2d 496 (1994); Temkin v. Frederick County Comm‘rs, 945 F.2d 716, 724 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding that a claim of inadequate training cannot be established under
B. Civil conspiracy
Appellants contend the district court erred in dismissing their claim of civil conspiracy. Appellants claim the police and other government officials participated in a conspiracy to deny their access to the courts under
We review the district court‘s grant of summary judgment de novo. Miller v. Leathers, 913 F.2d 1085, 1087 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109, 111 S.Ct. 1018, 112 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1991). To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of any material fact such that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). To determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, we construe all facts and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in favor of the non-moving party. The non-moving party may not rest on their pleadings alone, but must show that specific, material facts exist that give rise to a genuine triable issue. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The non-moving party may not “create a genuine issue of material fact through mere speculation or the building of one inference upon another.” Beale v. Hardy, 769 F.2d 213, 214 (4th Cir. 1985) (citing Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 963 (4th Cir. 1984)). Thus, summary judgment is appropriate where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, such as where the non-moving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case that the non-moving party has the burden to prove. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552.
To establish a civil conspiracy under
To satisfy their burden of proof, Appellants contend the Appellees disposed of evidence probative on the issue of whether Wilson was shot in the chest or the back. For instance, Appellants point to the fact that Officer Walker inexplicably disposed of Wilson‘s sweatshirt and that Wilson‘s chest wound was mysteriously excised from his body. Add to this other facts, such as Dr. Saoud‘s initial conclusion at the scene that Wilson was shot in the back, and Appellants contend the only reasonable inference is that the Appellees have conspired to cover up Officer Lake‘s use of excessive force.
We disagree with the inferences Appellants ask this court to draw. Appellants have a weighty burden to establish a civil rights conspiracy. While they need not produce direct evidence of a meeting of the minds, Appellants must come forward with specific circumstantial evidence that each member of the alleged conspiracy shared the same conspiratorial objective. See Hafner v. Brown, 983 F.2d at 576-77; Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, Okla., 896 F.2d 1228, 1230-31 (10th Cir. 1990); Fonda v. Gray, 707 F.2d 435, 438 (9th Cir. 1983). In other words, to survive a properly supported summary judgment motion, Appellants’ evidence must, at least, reasonably lead to the inference that Appellees positively or tacitly came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan.
Appellants’ evidence failed in this regard. Appellants did not produce any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that
For instance, Appellants speculate that Officer Walker disposed of Wilson‘s sweatshirt in furtherance of this conspiracy. Yet, Appellants offer no evidence, other than the act itself, that Officer Walker intended to further a conspiratorial objective. Rather, the undisputed evidence before the district court was that Officer Walker disposed of the sweatshirt because it was bloody and beginning to emit a foul smelling odor and he thought the investigation over the shooting had concluded.1 Similarly, the fact that Dr. Saoud initially thought Wilson was shot in the back when he examined the body at the scene, while Dr. Frost later confirmed the officers’ version of the events after performing an autopsy, is not probative of the existence of a conspiracy or their participation therein. Again, the undisputed evidence was that Dr. Saoud initially thought Wilson was shot in the back because of the relative size of the wounds—the chest wound was larger than the back wound, a fact consistent with the back wound being the entrance wound. Upon conducting an autopsy, however, it was clear that the bullet first grazed Wilson‘s arm, thereby altering the trajectory and spin of the bullet, causing it to do more physical damage when it entered Wilson‘s chest than would have occurred under normal circumstances. Additionally, the chest wound was located higher than the back wound, a fact indisputably consistent with the police officers’ account of Officer Lake‘s position in relation to Wilson: Officer Lake was on the stairs outside Wilson‘s apartment aiming downward towards Wilson when he fired the fatal shot.2
Appellants next contend that when Wilson‘s body was exhumed, the chest wound had been excised and sewn shut. From this, Appellants speculate that Dr. Frost must have removed the tissue surrounding the wound in anticipation that Appellants might one day exhume the body to conduct an independent examination. We find this fact wholly insufficient to raise a reasonable inference of a conspiracy. Appellants did not produce any evidence that Dr. Frost was responsible for this excision. Nor did Appellants produce any evidence, other than the excision itself, that it was done for some nefarious purpose. Finally, Appellants argue that the police officers’ account of the shooting is implausible because under that account, Wilson‘s left hand was on the trigger, while the undisputed evidence is that Wilson was right-handed. Again, we do not believe it reasonable to permit an inference from this fact that Appellees have conspired to cover up Officer Lake‘s use of excessive force. In fact, because the undisputed evidence also established Wilson was holding several shotgun shells in his right hand, the reasonable inference is that Wilson had his left hand on the trigger to expedite any necessary reloading of the gun with his free right hand.3
C. Due process
After concluding Wilson‘s autopsy, Dr. Frost ordered the incineration of Wilson‘s internal organs. This order was consistent with an informal policy of State Medical Examiner Sopher. Appellants contend that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Drs. Frost and Sopher on their claim that their disposal of Wilson‘s internal organs after the autopsy without first notifying Wilson‘s family members and providing them an opportunity to be heard violated the Due Process Clause. We reject this claim, finding that to the extent it is cognizable under
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against deprivations of property without constitutionally adequate procedures. The Constitution does not enumerate these property rights, but allows state law to define and establish them. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1491, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985). If, however, the property right asserted is not clearly established such that a reasonable person would have known of the right, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials from liability. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (citing Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 565, 98 S.Ct. 855, 861, 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978)).
Appellants cite Whitehair v. Highland Memory Gardens, Inc., 174 W.Va. 458, 327 S.E.2d 438 (1985), for the proposition that they have a state created property right in Wilson‘s organs. In Whitehair, the West Virginia Supreme Court recognized that fam-
In light of the lack of any West Virginia law extending this right to circumstances similar to those presented here, we hold that Drs. Sopher and Frost are entitled to qualified immunity. See Simmons v. Poe, 47 F.3d 1370, 1385 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that to determine whether a right is clearly established, a court should not focus on the right at its most general level, but rather at the level of its application to the specific conduct being challenged) (citation omitted). “Officials are not liable for bad guesses in gray areas; they are liable for transgressing bright lines.” Maciariello v. Sumner, 973 F.2d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1080, 113 S.Ct. 1048, 122 L.Ed.2d 356 (1993). A reasonable person would not have concluded that the doctors’ conduct violated the law; hence, Appellants’ claim was properly dismissed at summary judgment.
III.
Next we examine Appellants’ claims that various trial errors prejudiced their ability to establish their case of excessive force against Officer Lake. Specifically, Appellants contend the district court erroneously admitted a computer-animated videotaped demonstration of the Appellees’ theory of the case; and that the court erroneously excluded testimony that Officer Walker disposed of Wilson‘s sweatshirt, testimony that Wilson‘s chest wound was excised, and microscopic slides of tissue taken from Wilson‘s body during the second autopsy.
We review a district court‘s decisions whether to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion. Hottle v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 47 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir. 1995).
A. Videotaped simulation
At trial, Alexander Jason, a Forensic Animation Technologist, testified for the Appellees to a version of the shooting that was based on his interpretation of the evidence and was consistent with the police officers’ testimony. To illustrate Jason‘s testimony, Appellees introduced a computer-animated videotape. The videotape depicted Wilson‘s apartment complex, the officers’ position in relation to the open door to Wilson‘s apartment, and a step-by-step account of the incident. It showed an animated version of Officer Lake on the stairwell outside the apartment aiming his gun toward Wilson, who was moving toward the open door. It depicted Wilson raising his shotgun toward the doorway, Officer Lake firing the fatal shot, Wilson‘s body spinning around from the force of the shot, and his shotgun discharging into the stuffed chair in the back of the room. It then showed how the officers’ version of the event was consistent with the physical evidence by concluding with a depiction of the trajectory of Officer Lake‘s bullet in-line with the wounds to Wilson‘s forearm, chest, back, and the bullet hole in the wall of the room.
Appellants assign as error the district court‘s denial of their motion in limine to suppress this evidence. Appellants contend the videotape was inadmissible because it was experimental evidence that attempted to recreate the events but failed to reflect conditions substantially similar to those existing at the time of the shooting.
Typically, demonstrations of experiments used to illustrate principles forming an expert‘s opinion are not required to reflect conditions substantially similar to those at issue in the trial. Gladhill v. General Motors Corp., 743 F.2d 1049, 1051 (4th Cir. 1984). We have, however, recognized the unique problems presented by the introduction of videotapes purporting to recreate events at the focus of a trial. In Gladhill, we noted the potential prejudicial effect of such
Obviously, the requirement of similarity is moderated by the simple fact that the “actual events” are often the issue disputed by the parties. Nonetheless, to the extent the conditions are not a genuine trial issue, they should be reflected in any videotaped recreation. In Gladhill, for instance, the plaintiff crashed his car into a utility pole. He sued General Motors in a products liability action, contending that the brakes were faulty. The parties agreed that at the time of the accident it was night, and plaintiff was driving down a hill at a sharp curve in the road when he struck the utility pole. General Motors introduced a videotaped recreation of the accident that was conducted at a test facility on a flat, straight, asphalt surface in daylight by an experienced driver. We rejected the use of this videotape, holding that “when the demonstration is a physical representation of how an automobile behaves under given conditions, those conditions must be sufficiently close to those involved in the accident at issue to make the probative value of the demonstration outweigh its prejudicial effect.” Id. at 1052; see also Chase v. General Motors Corp., 856 F.2d 17, 19-20 (4th Cir. 1988).
We have not previously applied the requirement of “substantial similarity” to computer-animated videotapes that purport to recreate events at issue in trial. We fail to see a practical distinction, however, between a real-life recreation and one generated through computer animation; both can be a particularly powerful recreation of the events. Nonetheless, we need not explicitly decide this issue because we are satisfied the jury here fully understood this animation was designed merely to illustrate Appellees’ version of the shooting and to demonstrate how that version was consistent with the physical evidence. The district court carefully instructed the jury on this point:
[t]his animation is not meant to be a recreation of the events, but rather it consists of a computer picture to help you understand Mr. Jason‘s opinion which he will, I understand, be giving later in the trial. And to reinforce the point, the video is not meant to be an exact recreation of what happened during the shooting, but rather it represents Mr. Jason‘s evaluation of the evidence presented.
Although there is a fine line between a recreation and an illustration, the practical distinction “is the difference between a jury believing that they are seeing a repeat of the actual event and a jury understanding that they are seeing an illustration of someone else‘s opinion of what happened.” Datskow v. Teledyne Continental Motors Aircraft Prods., 826 F.Supp. 677, 686 (W.D.N.Y. 1993). The jury understood that the very thing disputed in this trial was the condition under which the shooting occurred. In light of this fact and the court‘s cautionary instruction, there was no reason for the jury “to credit the illustration any more than they credit the underlying opinion.” Id.
We are convinced Appellants suffered no undue prejudice as a result of this computer animation, and we will not disturb the broad discretion afforded trial judges in this area. In reaching this holding, however, we are not unmindful of the dramatic power of this type of evidence; hence, we encourage trial judges to first examine proposed videotaped simulation evidence outside the presence of the jury to assess its foundation, relevance, and potential for undue prejudice.
B. Wilson‘s sweatshirt and chest wound
At trial, Appellants sought to introduce evidence that Officer Walker inexplicably disposed of Wilson‘s sweatshirt within days of the shooting. Appellants also sought to introduce evidence that when they exhumed Wilson‘s body to perform a second autopsy, the chest wound appeared to have been completely excised. The district court granted Appellees’ motions in limine to exclude this evidence, holding that it was no longer relevant in light of the dismissal of Appellants’ conspiracy claims and that its admission would likely result in unfair prejudice.
We find no abuse of discretion with respect to either of these evidentiary rulings. In fact, both items of evidence were properly excluded for the same reason Appellants’ civil conspiracy claim was properly dismissed—the fact Appellants would like to have proved through admission of the evidence could be reached only through speculation and the piling of inferences. Appellants offer no evidence that Officer Walker was attempting to hide evidence when he disposed of the sweatshirt, that he had any idea the shooting was an issue, or that he was aware Dr. Frost had partially relied on the sweatshirt in reaching the conclusion that Wilson was shot in the chest. Similarly, evidence that the chest wound was excised was probative only of whether Wilson was shot in the back through pure speculation. Appellants offered no evidence that Dr. Frost was responsible for this act, or that it was done to hide evidence. We accordingly find no error in the district court‘s exclusion of this speculative evidence.
C. Tissue slides
Appellants contend the district court abused its discretion in disallowing introduction of tissue slides prepared by Dr. Wecht in conjunction with the second autopsy. We disagree. The district court had previously ordered discovery to be completed by July 31, 1993. By this date, Appellants were obligated to turn over any tissue samples taken by Dr. Wecht during the second autopsy. During his deposition on June 22, 1992, Dr. Wecht testified that he had taken tissue samples from Wilson‘s body, but that they were accidently thrown away during a cleaning of the laboratory. Doctor Wecht testified further that it was his opinion Wilson was shot in the back. Doctor Wecht did not state that the tissue samples formed the basis for his opinion. After the deposition, but prior to the discovery deadline, Appellees were advised that Dr. Wecht had located the slides containing the tissue samples. Appellees conducted a second deposition of Dr. Wecht. This time Dr. Wecht testified that the slides were an important basis for his opinion that Wilson was shot in the back. It took Appellants nearly three more weeks, which was approximately one month prior to trial, to turn the slides over to Appellees.
The district court suppressed this evidence because it was “late discovered” and not turned over until after the discovery deadline. Appellees contend this ruling was proper because they were not given enough time to conduct their own testing on the tissue samples. Appellants argue that Appellees had ample time to test the slides, but merely chose not to. District courts enjoy nearly unfettered discretion to control the timing and scope of discovery and impose sanctions for failures to comply with its discovery orders. Mutual Federal Sav. & Loan Ass‘n v. Richards & Associates, Inc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989). We refuse to interfere with this discretion; Appellants had ample opportunity to disclose this evidence to Appellees before the July 31, 1993 deadline.
IV.
We last turn to Appellants’ contention that the accidental admission of evidence at trial concerning the missing sweatshirt prejudiced their case such that their motion for a new trial should have been granted. Because Wilson‘s sweatshirt was thrown away by Officer Walker, the district court disallowed any evidence at trial relating to the sweatshirt.
At the close of trial, prior to the jury‘s deliberation, both sides were given an opportunity to examine the evidence before it was submitted to the jury. Appellants apparently missed a portion of Dr. Frost‘s autopsy reports in which the doctor referenced the sweatshirt. It should have been redacted in accordance with the district court‘s previous order. In the report, Dr. Frost described the fibers surrounding the bullet hole in the back of the sweatshirt as everted. After the jury received the evidence, it sent one question to the court asking for a definition of the word “everted.” The district court subsequently prepared a curative instruction to the effect that the jury was not to consider any evidence relating to the sweatshirt. Neither party objected to this solution, and the instruction was presented to the jury. Appellants thereafter raised this issue as part of their motion for a new trial.
Appellants contend they were entitled to a new trial because of the prejudice caused by the jury‘s improper consideration of the unredacted portion of Dr. Frost‘s report. Appellees respond that Appellants waived any complaint about submission of the sweatshirt because they equally shared the responsibility to see that unadmitted exhibits were not sent to the jury deliberation room. See United States v. Strassman, 241 F.2d 784, 786 (2d Cir. 1957). Even assuming this issue was properly preserved for review,6 we reject it as meritless.
Where a jury is exposed to unadmitted evidence, a presumption of prejudice arises. United States v. Brooks, 957 F.2d 1138, 1142 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1228, 112 S.Ct. 3051, 120 L.Ed.2d 917 (1992);
We find no abuse of discretion here because it is evident the district court took reasonable steps to alleviate any potential prejudice to Appellants. The court took suggestions from both parties concerning the proper course to mitigate the impact of admission of this evidence, and ultimately gave a curative instruction that was agreed to by attorneys for both parties. The instruction specifically told the jury it was not to consider any evidence relating to the sweatshirt. Juries are presumed to follow instructions provided them, United States v. Thornton, 1 F.3d 149, 156 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 483, 126 L.Ed.2d 433 (1993), and the mere fact the jury found for Appellees is not evidence that it ignored this curative instruction. We, therefore, reject Appellants’ claim.
V.
Accordingly, the order of the district court granting summary judgment in part, and the entering of judgment for the Appellees after a jury trial on Appellants’ remaining claims is
AFFIRMED.