JOHN K. HARDEN v. KEITH HILLMAN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Police Officer of Heritage Creek, Kentucky; CITY OF HERITAGE CREEK, KENTUCKY
No. 20-5056
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
April 6, 2021
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0080p.06
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville. No. 3:15-cv-00594—Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: January 14, 2021
Decided and Filed: April 6, 2021
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Aubrey Williams, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant. Mark A. Osbourn, BUSH & OSBOURN, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Aubrey Williams, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant. Mark A. Osbourn, BUSH & OSBOURN, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellees.
CLAY, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which DONALD, J., joined, and SUHRHEINRICH, J., joined in all but Part III.C. SUHRHEINRICH, J. (pp. 24–28), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
CLAY, Circuit Judge. In this action, Plaintiff John Harden, an African American man, asserted a number of claims under
Harden now appeals the district court‘s grant of summary judgment on his claim that his Fourth Amendment right to be free from arrest without probable cause was violated; the district court‘s denial of his first Motion for New Trial, which was based on both the district court‘s refusal to order the U.S. Marshals Service to serve his witnesses with subpoenas and allegedly improper comments made by Hillman‘s counsel at trial; and the district court‘s denial of his second Motion for New Trial, which was based on an affidavit from a juror detailing various issues she experienced and discovered during the jury‘s deliberation.
BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
On August 1, 2014, after finishing work, Harden went home, drank a couple of beers, and fell asleep. He awoke at 1:20 a.m. and decided to purchase more beer. Knowing that beer was only sold in Kentucky until 2:00 a.m., Harden rushed to a nearby Thorntons store. When he entered Thorntons, he noticed a uniformed police officer, Hillman, providing security for the store outside of his regular hours as an officer for the City of Heritage Creek.
After choosing a beer, Harden attempted to pay. However, the store clerk told Harden, “I‘m not serving you” because “I think you‘ve had too much to drink already anyway.” (Harden Dep., R. 95-2 at PageID# 865.) The store clerk also told Harden that she smelled alcohol on his breath. Harden tried explaining that he had only had a couple of beers many hours earlier. The store clerk did not change her mind. Harden then exclaimed, “I don‘t believe this.” (Id. at PageID# 866.) At that point Hillman shouted, “didn‘t she say she wasn‘t selling you any beer.” (Id.) When Harden confirmed the store clerk‘s statement, Hillman said, “[w]ell, get out of the store right now and don‘t come back.” (Id.)
Harden then left Thorntons and decided to go to another store to purchase beer. But when he checked the time, he realized that he would not be able to make it anywhere else before 2:00 a.m. He decided to give up on buying beer and to, instead, purchase a bag of chips from Thorntons. While he was in the store, Hillman said, “I thought I told you not to come back in here.” (Id. at PageID# 867.) Hillman then ran over to Harden and pinned him against the counter. While pinning Harden, Hillman told him, “[y]ou get out of the store right now and don‘t come back, or I‘m going to take you to jail.” (Id.) Harden replied, “[w]ell, take me to jail.” (Id.) Hillman then allegedly picked Harden up off the ground, slammed him down onto the floor, and handcuffed him.
Hillman subsequently called for a transport to the police station. However, after Harden told him that “I need to go to the doctor. I‘m hurt pretty bad. You‘ve messed up my back,” Hillman called for emergency medical services, which transported Harden to the University of Louisville Hospital. (Harden Dep., R. 95-3 at PageID# 946.) At the hospital, Hillman issued Harden a citation for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and public intoxication. Harden was released that same night. The charges against Harden were eventually dismissed after Hillman failed to appear for court.
B. Procedural Background
On July 8, 2015, Harden filed suit in the district court against Hillman, in his individual and official capacities; Thorntons, Inc.; and Hillman‘s employer, the City of Heritage Creek. In Count I, Harden alleged that Hillman deprived him of various constitutional rights. In Count II, Harden asserted a claim against Hillman for assault. In Count III, Harden alleged claims of false arrest and false imprisonment against Hillman. And in Count IV, he alleged that Hillman maliciously prosecuted him. Harden also asserted that Heritage
On summary judgment, the claims against Thorntons and Heritage Creek were all dismissed. Summary judgment was also granted to Hillman on Counts III and IV. As for Count I against Hillman, the district court granted summary judgment on the official capacity claim and construed the individual capacity claim as raising both an excessive force claim and an arrest without probable cause claim. The district court denied summary judgment on the excessive force claim but granted it on the arrest without probable cause claim. The assault claim in Count II was also dismissed pretrial. Thus, only Harden‘s excessive force claim against Hillman in Count I proceeded to trial.
On June 28, 2019, shortly before trial was set to begin, Harden‘s counsel allegedly “delivered to the United States Marshal[] subpoenas to be served on various witnesses whom he intended to call to testify on behalf of Plaintiff.” (Mot. for a New Trial, R. 181 at PageID# 2297.) On July 10, 2019, five days before trial, Harden‘s counsel‘s assistant was told by the Marshals Service‘s office “that they did not serve civil subpoenas unless ordered to do so by the judge.” (Id.) Harden then called the district court‘s case manager and requested that the district court order the Marshals Service to serve the subpoenas, but the district court refused. Through a process server, Harden‘s witnesses were then served with subpoenas but several failed to appear for trial.
After a three day trial, on July 17, 2019, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hillman on the excessive force claim. On August 15, 2019, Harden filed a Motion for New Trial based on both the district court‘s refusal to order the Marshals Service to serve his subpoenas and on Hillman‘s counsel allegedly making improper arguments to the jury. The district court denied the motion and further explained:
[T]he service of subpoenas is, in all due respect, not a matter of the Court‘s refusal to exercise its “plenary authority” to order the Marshal to serve the subpoenas, but instead, a simple matter of the failure of Plaintiff‘s counsel to take appropriate steps to ensure his trial subpoenas were properly served. There was no motion made for a continuance nor any showing why the Marshals Service should have been ordered to serve the subpoenas.
(Order, R. 199 at PageID# 2488.) The district court also held that there was “no misconduct on the part of defense counsel.” (Id.)
On September 24, 2019, Harden‘s counsel filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Contact Juror Post Trial explaining that he was contacted by the stepfather of one of the jurors who told him that, during voir dire, a juror had “concealed that his father was either a current or retired commander/sergeant of a local police department” and that the same juror “falsely explain[ed] the law to the jurors.” (Mot. for Leave of Court to Contact Juror Post Trial, R. 193 at PageID## 2458–59.) Over Hillman‘s objection, the district court granted the motion.
Harden‘s counsel subsequently filed a second Motion for New Trial along with an affidavit from Juror T.H. In her affidavit, T.H., an African American woman, stated that her “service on the jury was a very painful, humiliating and embarrassing experience, so much so that it has caused me not to ever again want to serve on another jury. I feel this way because of the blatant racial stereotyping, bias, and prejudice shown by my fellow jurors toward Mr.
Specifically, she averred that her fellow jurors “discounted and totally disregarded Mr. Harden‘s testimony in particular and his case in general because they believed he was a crack addict, and that his intent was to start trouble with Officer Hillman so he could sue the police department and get some money,” and that “[t]hey discredited his testimony and attributed the calmness he showed in describing the events by claiming that he was taking dope or drinking during breaks in the trial.” (Id. at PageID# 2495.) T.H. further alleged that the jurors “took verbatim what Mr. Hillman‘s [white] attorney said but described [Harden‘s African American lawyer] and his team as the ‘Cosby Show.‘” (Id.) T.H. sought to remind her fellow jurors that their job was to decide whether Hillman had used excessive force; however, the jurors “kept saying he just wants money; he‘s a crack head; he‘s an alcoholic; look at his wife, she‘s nodding off; she looks like she‘s on heroin.” (Id.) When T.H. explained that she was a nurse and that Harden “wouldn‘t be able to stay in the courtroom all these hours and stay focused if he was on drugs,” members of the jury replied, “you don‘t know what he‘s doing on breaks,” which T.H. understood to indicate a belief that Harden was “taking a swig during breaks to stay calm.” (Id.) T.H. concluded: “It is my very firm and absolute belief that Mr. Harden did not get a fair trial because of his race and racial stereotyping. Furthermore, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the race of the lawyers was a significant factor. The jurors hung on [to Hillman‘s counsel‘s] every word but gave no consideration at all to [Harden‘s counsel‘s] points.” (Id. at PageID# 2497.)
On a note unrelated to race, T.H. explained that one of the jurors “concealed from the judge that he was the son or grandson of a police commander or officer on a police department.” (Id. at PageID# 2496.) And when the jury eventually turned to the issue of excessive force, this juror explained that Hillman‘s force was not excessive because police have the right to use “force one step above what it takes to subdue a person.” (Id.) According to T.H., the jury was “absolutely persuaded by that and used it over and over again during the deliberation.” (Id.)
The district court then granted Hillman‘s motion to exclude T.H.‘s affidavit and denied Harden‘s motion for a new trial. The district court explained that
This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I. Summary Judgment on Harden‘s Claim That He Was Arrested Without Probable Cause
“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence
Harden argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his claim that Hillman violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from arrest without probable cause.2 “[S]tate law defines the offense for which an officer may arrest a person, while federal law dictates whether probable cause existed for an arrest.” Kennedy v. City of Villa Hills, Ky., 635 F.3d 210, 215 (6th Cir. 2011). “Probable cause exists if the facts and circumstances known
to the officer warrant a prudent man in believing that the offense has been committed.” Newman v. Twp. of Hamburg, 773 F.3d 769, 772 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102 (1959)). “A finding of probable cause does not require evidence that is completely convincing or even evidence that would be admissible at trial; all that is required is that the evidence be sufficient to lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the arrestee has committed or is committing a crime.” Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484, 498–99 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Harris v. Bornhorst, 513 F.3d 503, 511 (6th Cir. 2008)).
The district court held that Hillman had probable cause to arrest Harden for the Kentucky offense of criminal trespass in the third degree. Although neither party raises the issue, under Kentucky law, criminal trespass in the third degree is only applicable when a “defendant enter[s] upon the victim‘s unimproved land.” Colwell v. Commonwealth, 37 S.W.3d 721, 726–27 (Ky. 2000). However, Kentucky law provides that “[a] person is guilty of criminal
For purposes of criminal trespass in the second degree, “[a] person ‘enters or remains unlawfully’ in or upon premises when he is not privileged or licensed to do so.”
Harden argues that Hillman was not authorized to revoke his license to enter or remain on Thorntons property and, accordingly, that Hillman lacked probable cause to arrest him when he reentered the store. However, Dale Wright, a Thorntons regional manager, testified that Hillman was hired to provide “[s]ecurity” for Thorntons, and that Thorntons did not “define a [role] or responsibility for the security services that were provided.” (Wright Dep., R. 155 at PageID## 2054, 2058.) Although Harden argues that, according to Wright, the “only expectations that [Thorntons] had of Hillman was his presence in a uniform to deter theft,” (Appellant Br. at 6), Wright testified that Thorntons expected “Hillman to exercise his discretion in conducting security work.” (Wright Dep., R. 155 at PageID# 2066.) And Chief of Police Perry testified that security work encompasses “watching out for shoplifters, disorderly subjects, intoxicated people. The list, you know, I could go on and on . . . basically any violation of any law.” (Perry Dep., R. 154 at PageID# 2035.) Therefore, contrary to Harden‘s assertions, the undisputed evidence establishes that a reasonable person in Hillman‘s position would have believed himself authorized to revoke Harden‘s license to be in Thorntons. Because the undisputed evidence also shows that Harden knowingly reentered Thorntons, probable cause existed to conclude that Harden committed the offense of criminal trespass in the second degree. See Helms v. Zubaty, 495 F.3d 252, 259 (6th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Hillman.
II. Harden‘s First Motion for a New Trial
“We review the denial of a party‘s motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.” Morgan v. New York Life Ins. Co., 559 F.3d 425, 434 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Barnes v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 201 F.3d 815, 820 (6th Cir. 2000)). “The district court abuses its discretion when it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, uses an erroneous legal standard, or improperly applies the law.” United States v. Lawrence, 555 F.3d 254, 261 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. White, 492 F.3d 380, 408 (6th Cir. 2007)). “Reversal is only warranted if the Court has a ‘definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed a clear error of judgment.‘” Nolan v. Memphis City Sch., 589 F.3d 257, 264 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Barnes, 201 F.3d at 820).
“Under
However, ”
In his first motion for a new trial, Harden also argued that Hillman‘s counsel made improper arguments to the jury at trial. Because “the determination of the extent of permissible comment and argument by counsel rests primarily in the judicial discretion of the lower court,” this Court has held that “the power to set aside verdict for misconduct of counsel should be sparingly exercised on appeal.” City of Cleveland v. Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co., 624 F.2d 749, 756 (6th Cir. 1980) (quoting Twachtman v. Connelly, 106 F.2d 501, 509 (6th Cir. 1939)). “In considering whether allegedly improper attorney statements merit a new trial, we analyze the
totality of the circumstances,” and “[e]ven if the statements are improper, [a party is] not entitled to a new trial unless ‘there is a reasonable probability that the verdict of the jury has been influenced by such conduct.‘” CFE Racing Prod., Inc. v. BMF Wheels, Inc., 793 F.3d 571, 590 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Balsley v. LFP, Inc., 691 F.3d 747, 761 (6th Cir. 2012)).
Harden argues that various comments by Hillman‘s counsel referencing his lack of supporting witnesses were improper because Hillman‘s counsel “knew that [Harden‘s] counsel had issued subpoenas for the Marshals Service to execute but they refused to serve them” and that
III. T.H.‘s Affidavit and Harden‘s Second Motion for a New Trial
Harden argues that the district court erred by not declaring a mistrial after learning from T.H.‘s affidavit that: 1) a juror provided the jury with an incorrect statement of the law; 2) the same juror concealed during voir dire that his father or grandfather was a member of the local police department; and 3) members of the jury relied on racial stereotypes in reaching the verdict.
“By the beginning of [the twentieth] century, if not earlier, the near-universal and firmly established common-law rule in the United States flatly prohibited the admission of juror testimony to impeach a jury verdict.” Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 117 (1987) (citation omitted). Based on the common law rule,
During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury‘s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror‘s or another juror‘s vote; or any juror‘s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror‘s affidavit or evidence of a juror‘s statement on these matters.
A. The Allegation That a Juror Provided the Jury with an Incorrect Legal Standard
Harden argues that a juror‘s instruction of a purportedly incorrect legal standard for excessive force constituted extraneous prejudicial information that was improperly brought to the jury‘s attention. “Generally speaking, information is deemed ‘extraneous’ if it derives from a source ‘external’ to the jury.” Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40, 51 (2014) (quoting Tanner, 483 U.S. at 117). “‘External’ matters include publicity and information related specifically to the case the jurors are meant to decide, while ‘internal’ matters include the general body of experiences that jurors are understood to bring with them to the jury room.” Id. (citations omitted). Thus, “preconceived notions or beliefs about the legal system” are not considered to be derived from an external
B. The Allegation That a Juror Lied During Voir Dire
Turning to the allegation about a juror lying during voir dire, direct Supreme Court precedent forecloses Harden‘s argument. In McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984), a personal injury suit, the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial based on a juror failing to disclose during voir dire that his son had sustained a severe injury. See id. at 550. The Supreme Court held that “to obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Id. at 556; see also Lang v. Bobby, 889 F.3d 803, 812 (6th Cir. 2018).
However, in Warger v. Shauers, another personal injury suit, the Supreme Court held “that
C. The Allegation That the Jury‘s Verdict was Motivated by Racial Stereotypes
Pursuant to
Three years later, in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. 206, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017), such a case arose. See id. at 867. During the jury deliberations in Pena-Rodriguez‘s criminal trial for sexual assault, one juror made several racist statements about Mexican men and sexual assault, including that he “believed the defendant was guilty because, in [his] experience as an ex-law enforcement officer, Mexican men had a bravado that caused them to believe they could do whatever they wanted with women.” Id. at 862. The question before the Court was whether a case where “a juror‘s statements indicate that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in his or her finding of guilt” was an example of the extreme situation referred to in Warger “where the Constitution requires an exception to the no-impeachment rule.” Id. at 867.
To answer this question, the Supreme Court explained that the Fourteenth Amendment contains an “imperative to purge racial prejudice from the administration of justice.” Id. The Court explained that, in line with this imperative, “[t]ime and again, this Court has been called upon to enforce the Constitution‘s guarantee against state-sponsored racial discrimination in the jury system.” Id. This has included interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to “prohibit the exclusion of jurors on the basis of race” and “repeatedly [striking] down laws and practices that systematically exclude racial minorities from juries,” including the practice of litigants in both criminal and civil cases to exercise peremptory challenges to exclude “prospective juror[s] on the basis of race.” Id. at 867–68 (collecting cases). According to the Court, “[t]he unmistakable principle underlying these precedents is that discrimination on the basis of race, ‘odious in all aspects, is especially pernicious in the administration of justice.‘” Id. at 868 (quoting Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 555 (1979)).
While on the surface the Supreme Court‘s “decisions endorsing the no-impeachment rule and its decisions seeking to eliminate racial bias in the jury system,” appeared to conflict, the Court held that “[t]he two lines of precedent . . . need not conflict.” Id. The Court explained that its precedents affirming the no-impeachment rule “each involved anomalous behavior from a single jury or juror—gone off course,” and were based on the proposition that an “attempt to rid the jury of every irregularity of this sort would be to expose it to unrelenting scrutiny” that the jury system would be unlikely to survive. Id. However, the Court explained that this concern did not apply to racial bias, which is “a familiar and recurring evil that, if left unaddressed, would risk systemic injury to the administration of justice.” Id. Therefore, “[a]n effort to address the most grave and serious statements of racial bias is not an effort to perfect the jury but to ensure that our legal system remains capable of coming ever closer to the promise of equal treatment under the law that is so central to a functioning democracy.” Id. Thus, the Court held “that where a juror makes a clear statement that indicates he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror‘s statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee.” Id. at 869.
Although Pena-Rodriguez‘s holding cited the Sixth Amendment, which only applies to criminal prosecutions, the Supreme Court‘s reasoning and precedent demonstrate that the holding applies equally to civil cases. As an initial matter, the Supreme Court‘s cases dealing with the no-impeachment rule in the civil context have consistently left open the possibility of exceptional cases where the rule would not apply. In McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264 (1915), the Supreme Court‘s seminal case establishing the broad no-impeachment rule, the Court recognized that there might be exceptions “in the gravest and most important cases.” Id. at 269. And as explained above, almost one hundred years later, the Supreme Court explained in Warger that there might be exceptions to the no-impeachment rule in “cases of juror bias so extreme that, almost by definition, the jury trial right has been abridged.” 574 U.S. at 51 n.3. Pena-Rodriguez explicitly relied on this line of precedent. See 137 S. Ct. at 866–67 (“Today, . . . the Court faces the question that Reid, McDonald, and Warger left open.“).
Moreover, because the Warger Court held that “[t]he Constitution guarantees both criminal and civil litigants a right to an impartial jury,” we see no principled basis for limiting Pena-Rodriguez‘s holding to criminal cases. 574 U.S. at 50. As explained above, Pena-Rodriguez was based on the principle derived from the Fourteenth Amendment “that discrimination on the basis of race, ‘odious in all aspects, is especially pernicious in the administration of justice.‘” 137 S. Ct. at 868 (quoting Rose, 443 U.S. at 555). And while Pena-Rodriguez happened to deal with a criminal case, the Supreme Court has made it clear that this principle also applies in civil cases.
Five years after the Supreme Court held in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), that peremptory challenges could not be exercised to exclude potential jurors on the basis of race, the Supreme Court held in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991), that Batson was “not limited to the criminal sphere.” Id. at 630. In support of this holding, the Court explained that “[a] civil proceeding often implicates significant rights and interests. Civil juries, no less than their criminal counterparts, must follow the law and act as impartial factfinders. And, as we have observed, their verdicts, no less than those of their criminal counterparts, become binding judgments of the court.” Id. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that “[r]acial discrimination has no place in the courtroom, whether the proceeding is civil or criminal. . . . The Constitution demands nothing less.” Id. (citing Thiel v. S. Pac. Co., 328 U.S. 217, 220 (1946)); see also Warger, 574 U.S. at 50. Therefore, the Supreme Court‘s precedents establishing a civil litigant‘s right to an impartial jury and the need to eradicate racial discrimination from the civil courtroom supports holding that Pena-Rodriguez applies to civil cases.
Finally, Pena-Rodriguez did not merely decline to apply the no-impeachment rule to evidence of racial bias. Instead, the Supreme Court explained that the entire rationale for the no-impeachment rule does not apply to evidence of racial bias. The Court recognized that, although the no-impeachment rule ordinarily protects the jury system, the “unique historical, constitutional, and institutional concerns” surrounding racial bias means that applying the no-impeachment rule to such evidence “would risk systemic injury to the administration of justice.” Pena-Rodriguez, 137 S. Ct. at 868. The Supreme Court also explained that the normal safeguards protecting the right to an impartial jury are not as effective when it comes to racial bias because the “stigma that attends racial bias may make it difficult for a juror to report inappropriate statements during the course of juror deliberations.” Id. at 869. Therefore, because Pena-Rodriguez held that the no-impeachment rule has no place when it comes to evidence of
Although the Sixth Amendment is unavailable, as it was in Pena-Rodriguez, to fulfill the Constitution‘s demand that racial discrimination be eliminated from the civil courtroom, the Fourteenth Amendment‘s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” provides a sufficient basis to extend Pena-Rodriguez to civil cases.4 “[T]he central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate racial discrimination emanating from official sources in the States,” Pena-Rodriguez, 137 S. Ct. at 867 (quoting McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 192 (1964)), and the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is “to secure every person within the state‘s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents,”5 Green, 654 F.3d at 650 (quoting Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota Cnty., 260 U.S. 441, 445 (1923)). Thus, as detailed in Pena-Rodriguez, the Supreme Court has repeatedly invoked the Fourteenth Amendment in its efforts to root out discrimination from the jury system. See 137 S. Ct. at 867–68; see also Edmonson, 500 U.S. at 628 (holding that in a civil case the “exclusion on account of race violates a prospective juror‘s equal protection rights“).6
Holding that the no-impeachment rule must give way to a civil litigant‘s equal protection rights when jurors rely on racial stereotypes or bias in the deliberation room does not end the
discussion of Harden‘s claim. In Pena-Rodriguez, the Supreme Court explained that “[n]ot every offhand comment indicating racial bias or hostility will justify setting aside the no-impeachment bar to allow further judicial inquiry.” 137 S. Ct. at 869; see also United States v. Robinson, 872 F.3d 760, 770 (6th Cir. 2017). Instead, “there must be a showing that one or more jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast
The district court assumed without deciding that Pena-Rodriguez applies to civil cases but held that Harden failed to make “a sufficient showing that one or more jury members made statements exhibiting overt racial bias thus, casting serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury‘s deliberations and verdict.” (Order, R. 206 at PageID# 2530.) In line with that holding, the district court granted Hillman‘s motion to exclude T.H.‘s affidavit and denied Harden‘s second motion for a new trial. Therefore, the relevant issue turns to whether Harden correctly argues that the district court abused its discretion in holding that T.H.‘s affidavit did not make the requisite showing—that racial stereotypes or bias significantly motivated the vote cast by at least one of her fellow jurors—to require consideration of the evidence and any resulting equal protection violation.
According to T.H.‘s affidavit, her fellow jurors “discounted and totally disregarded Mr. Harden‘s testimony in particular and his case in general because they believed he was a crack addict, and that his intent was to start trouble with Officer Hillman so he could sue the police department and get some money.” (Aff. of T.H. Juror, No. 010145, R. 201-1 at PageID# 2495.) T.H. also alleged that the jury discredited Harden‘s “testimony and attributed the calmness he showed in describing the events by claiming that he was taking dope or drinking during breaks in the trial.” (Id.) Harden was allegedly labeled a “crack head” and “an alcoholic” by members of the jury, and a juror told T.H. that “you don‘t know what he‘s doing on breaks,” which T.H. understood to indicate a belief that Harden was “taking a swig during breaks to stay calm.” (Id.) And jurors stated that Harden‘s romantic partner looked like she was “on heroin.” (Id.) Finally, T.H. averred that the jury described Harden‘s African American attorney and his team as the “Cosby Show” and “gave no consideration at all” to Harden‘s attorney‘s arguments. (Id. at PageID## 2495, 2497.)
Little needs to be said about the pervasive and harmful racial stereotypes regarding African Americans and drugs, and specifically, crack cocaine. Over one hundred years ago, advocates for the “the Harrison Narcotic Drug Act, America‘s first comprehensive anti-drug legislation,” gathered support by using “blatant racial politics.” William Spade, Jr., Beyond the 100:1 Ratio: Towards A Rational Cocaine Sentencing Policy, 38 ARIZ. L. REV. 1233, 1245–46 (1996). For example, during his speech to Congress, Dr. Hamilton Wright warned that “the use of cocaine by the negroes of the South is one of the most elusive and troublesome questions which confront the enforcement of the law in most of the Southern states.” Id. at 1246 (citation omitted). “During the Act‘s passage, Congress quoted a 1910 report by Dr. Wright to the International Opium Commission which stated that cocaine was ‘a potent incentive in driving humbler negroes all over the country to abnormal crimes.‘” Id. at 1246–47 (internal citation and quotation omitted). Thus, Dr. Wright‘s report “helped to create the stereotype of the black man as a drug addict.” Id. at 1246.
According to T.H.‘s affidavit, members of the jury engaged in exactly this racial stereotype. Although the district court held that T.H.‘s affidavit does not “show that any statements were made by other jurors that exhibited overt racial bias,” (Order, R. 206 at PageID# 2530), T.H.‘s affidavit alleges that members of the jury believed that Harden was a “crack addict” who intended “to start trouble with Officer Hillman so he could sue the police department and get some money.” (Aff. of T.H. Juror, No. 010145, R. 201-1 at PageID# 2495.) Simply because Harden‘s romantic partner nodded off during the trial, the jury assumed that she was on heroin. As the preceding discussion shows, the jury‘s wholly unsupported belief that Harden and his romantic partner were hard drug users demonstrates overt racial bias.7 And the jury‘s characterization of Harden‘s African American legal team as the “Cosby Show“—a reference to a comedy show with an African American cast—only bolsters this conclusion.
Nonetheless, even though Pena-Rodriguez established that “racial bias in the justice system must be addressed,” because the allegations in T.H.‘s affidavit require an inference to conclude that they are about race, the dissent argues that the statements are an example of what the Supreme Court characterized as “offhand comment[s]“—as opposed to “statements exhibiting overt racial bias“—that are not sufficient to overcome the no-impeachment bar. Pena-Rodriguez, 137 S. Ct. at 869. In other words, the dissent appears to suggest that, unless a juror‘s statement explicitly references race in relation to their
in Pena-Rodriguez that the defendant was guilty “because he‘s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want“—the statement is merely an offhand comment. Id. at 862.
However, according to the Supreme Court, a juror‘s statement is an “offhand comment” when it “indicat[es]” that the juror harbors personal “racial bias or hostility” without showing “that racial animus was a significant motivating factor in the juror‘s vote to convict.” Id.; see also Robinson, 872 F.3d at 771 (holding that racial statements directed at a fellow juror, as opposed to a party in the case, constituted offhand comments because there was no indication that the juror‘s racial animus motivated her vote). But when the juror‘s statement indicates that racial bias played a role in the juror‘s vote, nothing in Pena-Rodriguez limits the definition of “overt racial bias” to situations as extreme as the one presented by the facts in that case. Instead, the Pena-Rodriguez exception to the no-impeachment rule is triggered where, as here, there is “a clear statement that indicates” that a juror “relied on racial stereotypes or animus,” i.e., “overt racial bias,” when casting their vote. Id. at 869 (emphasis added).
Our recent decision in United States v. Brooks, 987 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 2021), also fails to support the dissent‘s argument. In Brooks, an African American juror sent an email to the court which “indicated that she felt pressured to return a verdict against Brooks and that the other jurors had sided with the police.” Id. at 597. But the “email did not even mention race, let alone suggest that other jurors made race-based remarks.” Id. at 604. That is, there was not even an allegation of an offhand comment indicating that any jurors harbored personal feelings of racial bias or hostility. We therefore held that Pena-Rodriguez “require[s] express statements of racial animus, not neutral statements that may suggest unexpressed racial biases.” Id. at 604–05. Thus, Brooks stands for the unremarkable proposition that Pena-Rodriguez requires some statement indicating that a juror relied on racial stereotypes or animus when reaching the verdict.
Unlike the “neutral statements” in Brooks that had no racial connotations whatsoever, as explained above, T.H.‘s affidavit alleges express statements indicating that jurors engaged in racial stereotypes and animus. Id. And, unlike in Robinson, the affidavit alleges that the jury‘s verdict was motivated by the jury‘s racial bias. The district court held that Harden‘s claims “were exceedingly weak,” but that was not the jury‘s basis for its verdict.8 (Order, R. 206 at PageID# 2530.) Instead, members of the jury allegedly “discounted and totally disregarded” Harden‘s testimony and “his case in general” because they believed him to be a “crack addict” who was seeking a payout. (Aff. of T.H. Juror, No. 010145, R. 201-1 at PageID# 2495.) Members of the jury even intimated that Harden‘s calm demeanor while testifying—which easily could have been viewed as a sign that he was telling the truth—indicated that he was using drugs during breaks in the trial. Jurors also allegedly “gave no consideration at all” to Harden‘s African American lawyer‘s arguments on account of his race. The principle that “discrimination on the basis of race, ‘odious in all aspects, is especially pernicious in the administration of justice,‘” applies to these allegations even if, as the district court held, the evidence at trial weighed heavily
In sum, T.H.‘s affidavit suffices to show that “one or more jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury‘s deliberations and resulting verdict.” Id. at 869. The alleged juror statements “were egregious and unmistakable in their reliance on racial bias” and show that racial stereotypes about African Americans and drugs were a “significant motivating factor” in the jury‘s verdict.9 Id. at 869-870. Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion in excluding T.H.‘s affidavit.
D. The Procedures and Standard to Apply on Remand
Although Pena-Rodriguez held that the no-impeachment rule cannot bar consideration of evidence showing that jurors relied on racial stereotypes to reach their verdict, the Supreme Court did not address “what procedures a trial court must follow when confronted with a motion for a new trial based on juror testimony of racial bias” and “the appropriate standard for determining when evidence of racial bias is sufficient to require that the verdict be set aside and
a new trial be granted.” 137 S. Ct. at 870–71 (citations omitted). However, based on the Supreme Court‘s decision in Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954), this Court has set forth such standards and procedures in the context of the
Thus, because T.H.‘s affidavit raises a “colorable claim” that members of the jury relied on racial stereotypes in reaching their verdict, the district court must hold a Remmer hearing to allow Harden a meaningful “opportunity to establish actual bias.” United States v. Davis, 177 F.3d 552, 557 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Herndon, 156 F.3d 629, 635 (6th Cir. 1998)); see also McCoy, 652 F.2d at 659. “[A]ll interested parties [must be] permitted to participate” in the hearing, United States v. Owens, 426 F.3d 800, 805 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Remmer, 347 U.S. at 230), and, “[d]uring the hearing, attorneys for each side should have the opportunity to question [T.H.] and the rest of the jury to determine whether [racial stereotypes or bias] affected the jury‘s deliberations,” Lanier, 870 F.3d at 551; see also United States v. Lanier, 988 F.3d 284, 295 (6th Cir. 2021). And if the hearing reveals that racial bias or stereotypes “prejudicially affected jury deliberations,” Harden would be entitled to a new trial. Id.; see also Krause v. Rhodes, 570 F.2d 563, 570 (6th Cir. 1977).
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court‘s grant of summary judgment to Hillman on Harden‘s claim that he was arrested without probable cause, AFFIRM the district court‘s order denying Harden‘s first Motion for New Trial, VACATE the district court‘s order denying Harden‘s second Motion for New Trial, and REMAND with instructions to conduct a
CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART
SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Although I am largely in agreement with the majority, I disagree that the juror statements at issue meet the very narrow exception to the no-impeachment rule of
In Pena-Rodriguez the Supreme Court recognized an exception to the no-impeachment rule in order to combat “the most grave and serious statements of racial bias” in juror deliberations and emphasized that it should be “limited to rare cases.” Id. at 869-71. The test created by the Court gives effect these exhortations. To overcome
The defendant in Pena-Rodriguez was charged with criminal sexual assault. A juror allegedly said that he believed the defendant was guilty “because he‘s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want,” that “in [his] experience as an ex-law enforcement officer, Mexican men had a bravado that caused them to believe they could do whatever they wanted with women,” and that “nine times of out of ten Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls.” Id. at 862. That same juror also allegedly said that “he did not find the alibi witness credible because, among other things, the witness was ‘an illegal.‘” Id. The Supreme Court held that “the alleged statements by a juror were egregious and unmistakable in their reliance on racial bias.” Id. at 870. The Court found that “[n]ot only did [the juror] deploy a racial stereotype to conclude petitioner was guilty and his alibi witness should not be believed, but he also encouraged other jurors to join him in convicting on that basis.” Id. The Court therefore concluded that
Not one of the alleged statements at issue clears this high hurdle. The affidavit submitted by juror T.H. claims that other jurors made comments that Harden was not credible because (1) he was “a crackhead,” (2) he was “an alcoholic,” (3) his wife “look[ed] like she‘s on heroin,” (4) he could have been “taking swigs during breaks to stay calm,” (5) his legal team resembled “the Cosby Show,” and that (6) “his intent was to start trouble with Officer Hillman so he could sue the police department and get some money.” Certainly, these statements exhibit predilections unfavorable to Harden. But they are all based on Harden‘s perceived vices—addictions and greed—not his race. Although the Cosby Show comment comes somewhat closer to the racial bias bullseye, it does not directly reference the jurors’ beliefs about Harden: one must infer that because the jurors thought that Harden‘s African American legal team was comical, they also thought Harden was not credible because of his race. This is clearly not the type of overt racial bias the Supreme
This is also true of the statement the majority hangs its hat on, the “crackhead” reference, which the majority claims automatically equates to a stereotype about African Americans. But again, I do not perceive the reference as inexorably equating to race, especially since the jury could have thought that someone they perceived to have a drug addiction might not be credible. Even if there is some historical support for the majority‘s suggestion that the term “crackhead” has racial undertones, that conclusion still requires an inference. None of the alleged statements can be characterized as “overtly racial.”
Another aspect of Pena-Rodriguez confirms the narrow bandwidth of the test: the discretion the Supreme Court accords district courts when deciding whether a juror statement meets the “threshold showing” “that racial animus was a significant motivating factor on the juror‘s vote.” 137 S. Ct. at 869. The Court stated that, “Whether that threshold showing has been satisfied is a matter committed to the substantial discretion of the trial court in light of all the circumstances, including the content and timing of the alleged statements and the reliability of the proffered evidence.” Id. (emphases added). Here, the majority largely ignores the district court‘s express finding that “the lack of proof, not racial bias, is what motivated the jury‘s verdict.” The court considered the alleged juror statements against the backdrop of a completed trial and a unanimous jury verdict in favor of the defendant. The district judge also undoubtedly observed that the plaintiff and the defendant are both African American, as is T.H. She does not allege that she was pressured to vote against Harden, and indeed she did find by a preponderance of the evidence that Harden had not demonstrated his rights were violated. This only lends further support to the district court‘s opinion that it was the lack of proof, not racial bias, that informed the jury‘s decision. The substantial delay between the end of trial and Harden‘s allegation of potential misconduct might also speak to the minimal role these comments played in deliberations. Clearly her discomfort with the tenor of the deliberations was not sufficiently strong for her bring it to the court‘s attention immediately.1 Given the district court‘s thoughtful consideration of the allegations in light of all these circumstances, it is hard to conclude that it abused its “substantial discretion” in deciding not to conduct a Remmer hearing.
The history of
substantial merit. It promotes full and vigorous discussion by providing jurors with considerable assurance that after being discharged they will not be summoned to recount their deliberations, and they will not otherwise be harassed or annoyed by litigants seeking to challenge the verdict. The rule gives stability and finality to verdicts.” 137 S. Ct. at 865. The Supreme Court has also rejected attempts to expand the no-impeachment rule. See Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 127 (1987) (declining to include evidence that jurors had been drinking alcohol and consuming drugs during the trial); Warger v. Shauers, 135 S. Ct. 521, 529 (2014) (finding that
It bears repeating that the core concern of the no-impeachment rule is respect for the province of the jury. As Justice Alito explained in his dissent in Pena-Rodriguez, “[jurors] are expected to speak, debate, argue, and make decisions the way ordinary people do in their daily lives.” 137 S. Ct. at 874 (Alito, J., dissenting). This includes the right to make observations about the behavior of the witnesses. See Reagan v. United States, 157 U.S. 301, 308 (1895) (approving of instructions that stated the jury could consider “demeanor and conduct upon the witness stand and during the trial.“); United States v. Reesor, 10 F. App‘x 297, 305 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding the denial of a Remmer hearing where the alleged bias arose from defendant‘s own behavior at trial). Indeed, the jurors here were explicitly instructed that they could consider “the witnesses’ conduct and demeanor” when evaluating credibility. The jurors heard evidence suggestive of addiction. They learned that Harden‘s medical records suggested that he was potentially an alcoholic, and they heard testimony that he was discharged from the military for failing a drug test. Thus, in determining that Hillman had not made the threshold showing of racial bias during deliberations, it would not have been unreasonable for the district court to surmise that the jurors were factoring in Harden‘s perceived substance abuse problems, not his race.
Finally, I believe we need to be particularly vigilant in applying this court-created exception to
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully DISSENT.