Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. The district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling plaintiff's objections to testimony by a defense witness where the testimony was not contrary to the witness's pretrial affidavit and was based on the witness's general knowledge and knowledge gained through review of records prepared in the ordinary course of business; the court did not abuse its discretion by reasonably enforcing an agreement setting out the order in which witnesses would testify, as well as certain time constraints on the testimony.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3801 ___________________________ Lacey Kurt Paige lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Unknown Taber, Correctional Officer, et al. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________ Submitted: October 26, 2017 Filed: October 27, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Missouri inmate Lacey Paige appeals the district court’s1 adverse judgment entered upon a jury verdict in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. He argues that the 1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. district court improperly overruled his objections to a defense witness’s testimony, held the jury instruction conference before the defense presented its evidence, and prevented him from calling a witness. After careful review of the trial record, we conclude: (i) the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Paige’s objections to testimony by the defense witness that was not contrary to the witness’s pretrial affidavit and was based on the witness’s general knowledge and knowledge acquired through his review of records prepared in ordinary course of business, see Allied Sys., Ltd. v. Teamsters Auto. Transp. Chauffeurs, 304 F.3d 785, 792 (8th Cir. 2002); (ii) the court did not commit plain error with regard to the timing of the instruction conference, see Lighting & Power Servs. v. Roberts, 354 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 51; and (iii) the court did not prevent Paige from calling a witness, but rather reasonably exercised its discretion in enforcing an agreement regarding the order in which witnesses subject to time constraints would be called, see Grayson v. Ross, 454 F.3d 802, 812 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
