Trotter v. Shipley, No. 19-1793 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's pretrial rulings in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff after he was assaulted by a group of prison guards. The court concluded that the district court did not err in declining to admit a letter regarding one of the defendants, which discusses an incident that occurred more than two years after what happened in this case, because the letter contained other information which had no connection with the alleged assault of plaintiff and which had the potential to prejudice all defendants. Likewise, the court reached the same conclusion regarding the report. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give plaintiff's proposed, adverse-inference instruction regarding one of the defendant's non-participation, because it would have misstated the law, likely misled the jury, and unfairly prejudiced the remaining defendants.
Court Description: [Stras, Author, with Gruender and Benton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner Civil Rights. In this excessive force suit against prison guards, the district court did not err in declining to admit a letter terminating one of the defendants for an incident which occurred two years later as the letter contained other information which had no connection with the incident and which had the potential to unduly prejudice all defendants; no error in refusing to admit evidence regarding whether or not a video had been viewed as part of the investigation into the incident as the investigation was not at issue in the case and plaintiff had other avenues to bring up his argument regarding a coverup; jury instruction regarding non-participation by one defendant was accurate, neutral and complete, and the court did not err in denying plaintiff's request for an alternate instruction with an adverse-inference.
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.