Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wright v. City of St. Francis, 10th Cir. (2006)
Wright v. City of St. Francis, 10th Cir. (2006)
Clerk of Court
No. 05-3191
(D.C. No. 98-CV-1156-DWB)
(D. Kan.)
v.
CITY OF ST. FRANCIS, KANSAS;
ST. FRANCIS POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
-2-
interacting with them. In this appeal, plaintiffs contend that the district court 1
committed several trial errors, and that the court should have recused due to bias.
Plaintiffs have not filed a transcript of the trial proceedings in this appeal.
As appellants, it is plaintiffs responsibility to provide the portions of the trial
transcript relevant to the issues raised on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 10th
Cir. R. 10.1(A)(1). They requested a free transcript and sought a certification by
the district court that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial
question), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 753(f). The district court denied the
free-transcript request, noting that two issues could present substantial grounds
for appeal, and stating that a transcript is not necessary to decide these questions.
The court declined to certify plaintiffs remaining appellate issues as substantial.
Plaintiffs have renewed in this court their request for a free transcript and for
appointment of counsel.
Issues Reviewed
Before we consider the question of a free transcript, we address the issues
the district court certified as substantial: (1) whether the district court erred in
excluding the testimony of three witnesses proffered to rebut the defendant-police
chiefs earlier statements, and (2) whether the district court should have recused.
-3-
We agree with the district court that a transcript is not necessary for review of
these issues.
Ruling to Exclude Testimony
Plaintiffs challenge a trial ruling to exclude the testimony of three
witnesses they proffered to refute the police chiefs testimony that they told him
plaintiff David L. Wright had bragged about not paying taxes. Plaintiffs wanted
to call the witnesses at trial to deny that they had made those remarks to the
police chief, thus demonstrating that the police chief made false statements. 2 The
district court held that because plaintiffs admitted that they had not filed tax
returns or paid taxes, the proffered testimony pertained only to a collateral issue
and would confuse the jury. In addition, the court ruled that the police chiefs
testimony giving general background information on communications between his
department and the KDOR did not place the police chiefs character for
truthfulness in issue under Fed. R. Evid. 608.
We review a trial courts exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion,
reversing only if we have a firm and definite belief that the trial court made a
Plaintiffs claim the police chief named the three individuals at trial, while
defendants assert that he named them only at his deposition. The district courts
trial notes indicated that the police chief did not name the individuals at trial; he
testified that he had received the information from the public. R. Doc. 304, at
12 n.6. Either way, we conclude that the district courts ruling was not reversible
error.
-4-
clear error in judgment. Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F.3d 1151, 1162 (10th Cir.
2005) (quotation omitted). Even if we were to find an abuse of discretion,
however, reversible error may be predicated only upon errors that affect a partys
substantial rights. Id. Moreover, we accord considerable deference to a trial
courts determination that evidence is likely to cause jury confusion. Id. at 1164.
Plaintiffs have not shown that the ruling to exclude their witnesses affected their
substantial rights. Therefore, we decline to reverse the jurys verdict.
Recusal
Plaintiffs also contend that the district judge should have recused due to
bias against them caused by remarks David L. Wright made about the judge at a
hearing. They assert that bias was shown by the judges observation that
Mr. Wright showed hostility in the courtroom. In addition, they claim bias due to
the judges former affiliation with an attorney from St. Francis. Plaintiffs have
not pointed to any act or speech by the district judge indicating bias or the
appearance of impropriety. See Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1450
(10th Cir. 1996) (noting even appearance of impropriety must be avoided). To the
extent plaintiffs rely on adverse rulings to show bias, adverse rulings against a
litigant cannot in themselves form the appropriate grounds for disqualification.
Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 919 (10th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we affirm the
district courts decision not to recuse.
-5-
-6-
whether the testimony was received over objection, or, if it was, the basis for the
trial courts rulings. They have not shown why admission of this testimony was
critical to their case, thus requiring reversal. We recognize that plaintiffs cannot
cite to the transcript they now request; however, they could surely remember if
they objected to the challenged testimony and they could have given us a sense of
the context of the evidence without precise record citations. Accordingly, we find
no abuse of discretion in the district courts determination that a free transcript is
not warranted, and we deny plaintiffs renewed motion for a free transcript.
Without a transcript, we cannot review the propriety of the challenged
evidentiary rulings or the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the jurys
verdict. Consequently, we must affirm. See Scott v. Hern, 216 F.3d 897, 912
(10th Cir. 2000) (Where the record is insufficient to permit review we must
affirm.); accord Worthington v. Anderson, 386 F.3d 1314, 1320 (10th Cir. 2004);
Deines v. Vermeer Mfg. Co. 969 F.2d 977, 979-80 (10th Cir. 1992).
Plaintiffs renewed request for a free transcript and for appointment of
counsel on appeal is denied. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-8-