Patterson v. City of Omaha, et al

Filing 147

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 140 Motion to Set Aside Judgment. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
TYRONE PATTERSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF OMAHA, a political
)
subdivision of the State of
)
Nebraska; MOLLY HIATT, both
)
individually and officially
)
as an officer of the Omaha
)
Police Department, and PAUL
)
HASIAK, both individually and )
officially as an officer of
)
the Omaha Police Department, )
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:11CV128

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion of
plaintiff Tyrone Patterson for reconsideration of plaintiff’s
request for a new trial (Filing No. 140).

Plaintiff argues that

new evidence reveals a misunderstanding or misapplication of law
by the jury.

The new evidence presented is the report of an

“expert” who made conclusions about the jury’s reasoning based on
a five-question survey answered by a single juror nearly two
months after the trial.
The Court does not find this to be sufficient reason to
overturn its prior order.

Plaintiff has presented the secondhand

statement of a juror to show a misrepresentation of the law or
unsound reasoning by the jury.

Cases cited by plaintiff do not

support using post-verdict statements of the jury for this

purpose.

One of the cases plaintiff cites explicitly forbids

such a use:
Jurors cannot be heard to testify
that while the substance of the
verdict returned into court was
understood, it was predicated upon
a mistake of the testimony, a
misrepresentation of the law,
unsound reasons, or improper
motives . . . [J]urors are
competent witnesses for the purpose
of showing that through oversight,
inadvertence, or mistake respecting
the substance of the verdict
returned into court, [it] was not
the verdict on which agreement was
actually reached in the jury room.
Young v. United States, 163 F.2d 187, 189 (10th Cir. 1947).

The

Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court for
the Western District of Missouri which relied, in part, on Young
to deny a new trial in a case similar to the plaintiff’s.
Armstrong v. United States, 228 F.2d 764, 768-69 (8th Cir. 1956)
(affirming district court’s holding “that the verdict of the jury
could not be affected, disturbed or impeached by the evidence of
former jurors as to what had occurred during the deliberations of
the jury in the jury room”).
F.2d 764, 769 (8th Cir. 1956).

Armstrong v. United States, 228
Accordingly,

-2-

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration is denied.
DATED this 10th day of April, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-3-