Micius et al v. Bailey et al

Filing 110

ORDER denying 107 Motion for New Trial (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on November 2, 2011. (DML) CC: Mayard. (KT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ELSIE M. MAYARD

Civil No. 08-5853 (JRT/SER)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

ADAM P. SIEGFRIED,
Defendant.

Elsie M. Mayard, 755 West Minnehaha Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104,
plaintiff pro se.
Cheri M. Sisk, Assistant City Attorney,, CITY OF SAINT PAUL
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 750 City Hall and Courthouse, 15 West
Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55102, for defendant.

On October 5, 2011, following a two-day jury trial, a jury found that defendant,
St. Paul police officer Adam P. Siegfried, had not used excessive force or committed
battery during his restraint of plaintiff Elsie M. Mayard on December 25, 2007. Mayard
now moves for a new trial. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Mayard’s
motion.

DISCUSSION
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under Rule 59(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may grant a

motion for a new trial “on all or some of the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1). “A new
trial is appropriate when the first trial, through a verdict against the weight of the

24

evidence . . . or legal errors at trial, resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” Gray v. Bicknell,
86 F.3d 1472, 1480 (8th Cir. 1996). “The authority to grant a new trial is within the
discretion of the district court.” Id. The Court may grant a new trial where erroneous
evidentiary rulings “had a substantial influence on the jury’s verdict.”

Littleton v.

McNeely, 562 F.3d 880, 888 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further,
only if the jury's verdict is so against the great weight of the evidence that it constitutes a
miscarriage of justice should a motion for a new trial should be granted. Ogden v. Wax
Works, Inc., 214 F.3d 999, 1010 (8th Cir. 2000).

II.

MAYARD’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
Mayard appears to contend that documents related to Siegfried’s disorderly

conduct conviction should have been admitted and that a substantial error occurred
because of the exclusion of the evidence.1 Mayard sought to introduce a news article and
records regarding Siegfried’s conviction for disorderly conduct.

The Court granted

Siegfried’s motion in limine to exclude these documents.
“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or
misleading the jury . . . .” Fed. R. Evid. 403. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts
is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity
therewith.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).

1

Mayard filed a notice of a motion referencing “substantial errors [that] occurred in the
admission or rejection of Evidence” and attached to the motion documents related to Siegfried’s
disorderly conduct conviction. (Pl.’s Mot. New Trial, Docket No. 107.)
-2-

The Court excluded the information as irrelevant and potentially confusing to the
jury because it had no connection or relevance to the events of December 25, 2007. Fed.
R. Evid. 402, 403. The events giving rise to the conviction did not involve Mayard,
occurred almost a month after the events of Mayard’s action, and took place when
Siegfried was off duty.

The Court also found the information to be inappropriate

character evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 404. Siegfried’s conviction for disorderly conduct was
offered for no other reason than to “show action in conformity” with other acts of
violence.
Furthermore, in this case, the verdict was not against the great weight of the
evidence. Siegfried presented evidence that his conduct was consistent with his training
and with ordinary police procedures and that any force he used was reasonable under the
circumstances.

The Court found Siegfried and his witness, Officer Adam Bailey,

credible. The Court concludes that the verdict was not against the great weight of the
evidence and no improper evidentiary ruling was made. To the extent Mayard’s motion
may be read to allege additional grounds for a new trial, the Court finds such grounds
unsupportable. Mayard’s motion for a new trial is denied.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Elsie M. Mayard’s Motion for a New Trial [Docket No. 107]
is DENIED.
DATED: November 2, 2011
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

____s/
____
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
-3-