Rudy Palmerin and Joe Palmerin v. City of Riverside, Ab Brown, Ron Loveridge, Ed Sheppard, Jean Mansfield, Robert Bowers, Robert Buster, Sam Digati, Terry Frizzel, Doug Weiford, Vic Jones, Sonny Richardson, Terry Redfearn, Douglas Riggle, Gary Barnes, Thomas Buckingham, Henry Lucas, Warren Holm, Robert Arnold, John Burtt, Peter Curzon, Gary Crawford, Richard Bradley, Randall Eggleston and Wallace Rice

Citations: 794 F.2d 1409; 21 Fed. R. Serv. 1; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 27254Docket: 85-5590

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 21, 1986; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

During a narcotics investigation in Riverside, California, police officers engaged in a scuffle with suspects and their family, leading to misdemeanor guilty pleas from four family members. The plaintiffs, Rudy and Joseph Palmerin, along with their parents, sued the officers and the City of Riverside under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged excessive force. The jury found no constitutional violations by the officers, resulting in the dismissal of claims against the City. The appellants argued that admitting their guilty pleas and the seized marijuana as evidence was erroneous and that the City's dismissal was premature. The court affirmed the lower court's decisions.

Rulings on the admissibility of evidence are upheld unless the district court abused its discretion. The balancing of probative value against prejudicial harm under Fed. R. Evid. 403 is also reviewed for abuse of discretion. A district court's dismissal of defendants is reviewed de novo. 

In the case at hand, the district court denied a motion in limine to exclude guilty pleas from evidence, determining they were relevant to the issue of excessive force as they indicated resistance to police. The Palmerins contended that the guilty pleas were irrelevant, constituted impermissible character evidence, and that any relevance was outweighed by prejudice.

The City argued that the Palmerins' failure to contemporaneously object during trial precluded them from raising the issue on appeal, citing Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1). The circuit’s law is unclear about whether a failed pretrial motion in limine preserves an objection for appeal. 

Two conflicting cases illustrate this confusion. In United States v. Helina, the court found that failure to object during trial after an in limine ruling required review for plain error. Conversely, in Sheehy v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., the court ruled that failure to object during trial constituted reversible error despite a pretrial ruling on similar evidence.

The court determined that Sheehy did not waive his right to appeal by failing to object at trial, as his attorney had adequately objected during pretrial arguments concerning the admissibility of evidence. In contrast to the case of Helina, which involved the prosecutor's conduct impacting constitutional rights and required a contemporaneous objection, Sheehy's objection was preserved through a pretrial motion in limine that addressed the same evidentiary issue. This case highlights a circuit split regarding the necessity of contemporaneous objections after an unsuccessful pretrial motion; some circuits mandate such objections to preserve issues for appeal, while others, like the Third Circuit, allow for the pretrial motion to suffice if it resolves the admissibility question definitively. The court favored a more flexible approach, rejecting strict requirements that could disadvantage counsel and hinder meritorious appeals. The use of pretrial motions in limine is encouraged to streamline trial processes and minimize jury disruptions, thereby enhancing trial efficiency and clarity.

Judges and attorneys can address evidentiary issues before trial through motions in limine, allowing for more thoughtful consideration than if issues arise during trial, leading to more efficient proceedings. According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, formal exceptions to court rulings are not required. Therefore, there is no need for a contemporaneous objection after an unsuccessful motion in limine, as this would prioritize form over the substance of objections. As such, if an objection is thoroughly examined during the in limine hearing and the trial court's ruling is clear, no further action is needed to preserve the objection for appeal.

In this case, the Palmerins successfully preserved their objection regarding the admissibility of guilty pleas, which were adequately discussed during the in limine hearing, and the trial court's ruling was definitive. The introduction of these guilty pleas during Richard Palmerin's cross-examination was not characterized as character evidence, but rather related to the context of the officers' response, particularly given the accusation of excessive force. The pleas provided essential context for the jury to evaluate the appropriateness of the officers' actions, thus their probative value outweighed any prejudicial impact.

Additionally, the district court dismissed the Palmerins' objection to the admission of marijuana evidence seized from Phillip Palmerin's van, as well as his subsequent guilty plea for possession. However, the appellate record lacks the transcript of the trial section where this evidence was introduced, which is required for appeals challenging evidence admission.

A district court's discretion in admitting evidence cannot be reviewed without documentation indicating how the evidence was presented and accepted. The burden to provide a record lies with the party challenging the evidence. In the absence of a transcript or justification for not including one, the appeal regarding the admission of marijuana and Phillip's conviction is dismissed. Regarding Monell claims against municipal defendants, the district court dismissed these claims based on a jury finding that the officers committed no constitutional violations. For a valid Monell claim, there must be evidence that a constitutional violation was tied to a municipal policy. Following the rationale in Sanchez v. City of Riverside, if the individual officers are found not liable for constitutional violations, there can be no municipal liability. While Monell claims may arise in cases of good faith immunity, they are not applicable when officers act constitutionally. Thus, if no constitutional injury occurred, the existence of departmental policies permitting excessive force is irrelevant.

The two lawsuits were consolidated for trial, with Richard and Cruz Palmerin choosing not to appeal the district court's decisions or jury verdicts. Phillip Palmerin was not involved in the section 1983 suits. A motion in limine, supported by Rudy and Joseph Palmerin, saw their counsel not participate in its argument. A ruling made during the pretrial phase is considered 'timely,' negating the need for an objection during the trial. The preservation of error for appeal may depend on the appellate court's view of the trial's justice. There is a division among state courts regarding whether a contemporaneous objection is necessary during trial to appeal on evidentiary grounds after a denied motion in limine. Distinctions are made between cases where the in limine motion fails and evidence is introduced versus when the motion succeeds and evidence is excluded. The Supreme Court's ruling in Luce v. United States emphasized that an unsuccessful in limine motion could not be appealed if the disputed evidence was not presented to the jury because the defendant did not testify. The court highlighted that the timing and manner of evidence introduction affect appellate decisions on prejudice and harmless error. Although no contemporaneous objection was made at trial, an appellate court can still review the impact of admitted evidence that was initially objected to in limine. During oral arguments, neither party was certain whether marijuana or prior convictions were formally entered as evidence. The jury was posed a question regarding the basis of their verdict, affirmatively stating that no constitutional violations were committed by the defendant.