Maxwell/G-Doffee v. Clerk et al

Filing 183

ORDER denying 175 Motion for New Trial and embedded request to strike Defendants' 181 Response. No meritorious ground for another trial has been presented. His 182 motion for a copy of this Order is granted. The Clerk will send it to him. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 12/14/2016. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
ROBERT THOMAS MAXWELI/G-DOFFEE
ADC #108778

v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 5:13-cv-291-DPM

RICHARD CLARK, Sgt., ADC Maximum
Security Unit, and RODERICK L. COOKSEY, JR.,
Corporal, ADC Maximum Security Unit

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
1. G-Doffee' s motion for a new trial, Ng 175, and embedded request to

strike Defendants' response, Ng 181 at 2-3, are denied.

No meritorious

ground for another trial has been presented. His motion for a copy of this
order, Ng 182, is granted. The Clerk will send it to him.
2. G-Doffee claims that, near the end of the trial, a juror tried to

communicate with Defendant Clark. NQ 175 at 3. The Court observed the jury
closely throughout the proceedings and didn't see this _
alleged misconduct.
Most importantly, G-Doffee didn' t bring the alleged

attempt at

communication to the Court's attention when it happened, or promptly
thereafter. He could have and should have. G-Doffee was deeply involved
in his case. He communicated regularly and extensively with his appointed
lawyer throughout the proceedings. Yet neither G-Doffee nor counsel raised

this alleged impropriety during trial. Holding back on this issue has deprived
the Court of the opportunity to investigate and, if need be, to cure. G-Doffee
therefore waived his objection. Yannacopoulos v. General Dynamics Corporation,
75 F.3d 1298, 1304 (8th Cir. 1996).
3. G-Doffee' s other proposed grounds for a new trial- most waived at
trial- lack merit. First, there was no discovery violation, NQ 175 at 6-7,
because Clark and Cooksey weren't required to disclose evidence used solely
for impeachment. FED. R. Crv. P. 26(a)(1) & (3). Second, after lengthy
proceedings outside the jury's presence, G-Doffee chose to follow his lawyer's
advice about the Tracy Bryant letters. NQ 175 at 5-6. He can't walk back that
decision now. Third, though both sides were zealous, nothing in the closing
arguments was so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial. Fourth, though
G-Doffee disagrees with the jury's verdicts, those verdicts aren't against the
weight of the evidence. Gray v. Bicknell, 86 F.3d 1472, 1480 (8th Cir. 1996).
And fifth, on his preserved claims of error, G-Doffee hasn't offered any reason
for this Court to change the rulings it made before and during trial.

-2-

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. t/
United States District Judge

-3-