Estate of Diaz v. City of Anaheim, No. 14-55644 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAfter Manuel Diaz was shot by an Anaheim police officer, Diaz's estate and mother filed suit against the officer and the city, alleging federal civil rights violations. The jury returned the verdict in favor of defendants. The court concluded that the trial court erred in failing to bifurcate liability from compensatory damages where graphic and prejudicial evidence about the victim has little, and in large part no, relevance to the liability issue. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded to the district court with some guidance. First, the evidence of Diaz’s drug use and gang affiliation has marginal, if any, probative value as to damages, and none as to liability. On retrial, the district court should closely review this evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, and should assure that such evidence is admitted only to the degree that the testimony is connected up with Ms. Huizar’s reaction to her son’s death. Second, if plaintiffs are willing to stipulate that Diaz was a gang member (which they claim they tried to do during trial), no expert testimony about gangs - such as gang activities, tattoos, or monikers - should be admitted. Third, while there is a “strong presumption that jurors follow instructions,” a limiting instruction may not sufficiently mitigate the prejudicial impact of evidence in all cases. And fourth, if the district court is going to sustain an objection and grant a motion to strike, merely saying “stricken” does not sufficiently inform the jury about the proper use of the evidence it just heard. Finally, the court concluded that the trial court did not err in ruling force was not excessive as a matter of law.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment, entered following a jury trial in favor of defendants, in an action alleging that a City of Anaheim police officer used excessive force when he shot and killed Manuel Diaz. The panel held that the district court erred by refusing to bifurcate the liability phase from the compensatory damages phase of the trial and as a result the district court admitted inflammatory evidence introduced by the defendants that had no relevance to the key issue in the case, whether defendant acted within the law when he shot Diaz. The panel remanded for a new trial with guidance for the district court to: (1) closely review under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and 403 evidence of Diaz’s drug and gang affiliation and admit the evidence only to the degree that it was connected to the reaction of Diaz’s mother to his death; (2) not permit expert testimony about gangs to be admitted if plaintiffs are willing to stipulate that Diaz was a gang member; (3) sufficiently consider that a limiting instruction may not sufficiently mitigate the prejudicial impact of certain evidence; and (4) when striking testimony, to clearly identify what testimony was improperly given, and instruct the jury that it may not be considered. ESTATE OF DIAZ V. CITY OF ANAHEIM 3 The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on the excessive force claim, holding that this question was one for the jury. The panel noted that while plaintiffs presented substantial evidence that the force was unreasonable, defendants also presented substantial evidence to support their position.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 27, 2016.
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.