F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
July 11, 2006
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
DONALD K. WEAVER and
VERDA WEAVER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants and
Cross-Appellees,
No. 03-1398
v.
No. 03-1436
RODNEY BLAKE, as next friend and
guardian of CHASE BLAKE, a minor,
Defendant-Appellee and
Cross-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D.C. No. 01-MK-1818 (PAC))
Timothy Gill Buxton (James E. Puga and Timms R. Fowler, with him on the briefs), of
Leventhal, Brown & Puga, P.C., Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-
Appellees.
Wendelyn K. Walberg (Deana R. Dagner with her on the briefs), of Walberg, Dagner &
Tucker, P.C., Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
Before KELLY and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and ARMIJO, District Judge.*
*
The Honorable M. Christina Armijo, United States District Judge for the District
of New Mexico, sitting by designation.
ARMIJO, District Judge.
This appeal arises from a motor-vehicle collision between Defendant Chase Blake
(minor son of Defendant Rodney Blake) and Plaintiff Donald K. Weaver (spouse of
Plaintiff Verda Weaver) as they drove in opposite directions on a dusty, unpaved farming
road in Washington County, Colorado. Asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
based on diversity of citizenship, Plaintiffs filed a civil action in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the collision resulted from Defendant
Chase Blake’s negligence. At the conclusion of a five-day trial, a jury found that both
drivers were equally at fault and awarded no damages. The district court entered
judgment on the jury’s verdict and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial.
On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s decisions (1) to admit the
testimony of a state police accident investigator concerning where he observed the
vehicles’ tire tracks at the accident scene, (2) to exclude evidence of Defendant Chase
Blake’s lack of a driver’s license, (3) to decline to instruct the jury that Defendant Chase
Blake’s lack of a driver’s license constituted negligence per se, (4) to place a limit on the
length of time the jury was permitted to deliberate on a Friday evening, and (5) to accept
a verdict form from the jury stating that each driver was 50% at fault and that Plaintiffs’
damages were $0. In the event that the matter is remanded for a new trial, Defendants
conditionally cross appeal the district court’s decision to exclude expert testimony from
an accident reconstructionist.
-2-
We have jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth below. As we affirm the
district court’s judgment, we have no occasion to remand for a new trial and therefore
dismiss Defendants’ cross appeal as moot.
I.
We address the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ appeal in roughly chronological order as
they arose during the course of the litigation, starting with the contention that the district
court erred in admitting certain testimony by Officer Dahlsten, a state police accident
investigator who collected and recorded data from the scene of the collision. Before trial,
Plaintiffs filed a motion in limine and the district court conducted a hearing to determine
the admissibility of Officer Dahlsten’s testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court issued an oral ruling that:
“Officer Dahlsten is qualified and may testify as an investigator who collects data at the
scene of an accident for purposes of Rule 702, and he may express his opinion as to what
he saw and measured as to the width of the roadway [and] the point of rest of the
vehicles.” The district court further stated that “[h]e can testify as to what he saw, where
the skid marks were or where the tire marks were . . . .”
On these subjects, the district court noted that: “I have some question in my mind
as to whether or not Officer Dahlsten’s testimony, as I’ve circumscribed it, is really
-3-
expert testimony at all. It’s fact testimony based on his observations at the scene.” The
district court further explained that:
Officer Dahlsten is proffered and has been accepted not as an accident
reconstructionist but instead as an accident investigator, which he defines as
a person who collects data at the scene.
Therefore, his sole purpose in this trial as an expert is to express an
opinion within the scope of that role as an investigator: collecting data at
the accident scene. Not any opinion as to what the data means, not any
opinion as to the significance of the data, only what the data is.
Based on this reasoning, the district court also ruled before trial that Officer
Dahlsten could not offer expert opinions based on technical analysis derived from the
data or observations he collected concerning (1) the width of the road; (2) the point of
impact; (3) the distance between the point of rest and the point of impact; and (4) which
vehicle crossed over the midline of the road. In particular, the district court noted that:
“Point of impact is not a fact. It is not data. It is an opinion.” Similarly, the district court
reasoned that “which vehicle crossed over the midline of the road . . . is not a fact and it is
not data,” because “[t]here was no sign in the middle of the road that says this is the
midpoint.”
The district court’s oral rulings at the conclusion of the Daubert hearing were later
summarized in courtroom minutes signed by the clerk of the court. In their brief on
appeal, Plaintiffs refer to these courtroom minutes of the Daubert hearing as a
“supplemental pretrial order.”
-4-
At trial, Officer Dahlsten did not appear in the courtroom in person but offered live
testimony from a remote location by means of a video connection. On direct
examination, defense counsel elicited the following trial testimony concerning Officer
Dahlsten’s observation of tire tracks in the roadway where the two vehicles collided:
Q. Can you describe where those tire tracks were and what you
saw?
A. When I arrived, I saw a set of tire tracks that based on my
experience I could tell was a vehicle in control and traveling normally or in
a normal fashion north up the county road, and I could see tire tracks that
were coming south on the appropriate side of road that also indicated a
vehicle that was in control that was operating normally.
At a location, the two tracks met; and I could see then that was
where the debris was. And then I could see what we call loss of control,
where tracks from both vehicles immediately deviated from their path of
travel and led to where the . . . two vehicles eventually came to rest.
Q. With regard to the tracks that were traveling in a northbound
direction, can you tell me more specifically the path that the northbound
tracks took based on what you saw?
A. Well, from what I remember, the tracks were driving--they’re
going north, except they’re drifting, if you will or--what am I looking for---
they weren’t staying right over on their half of the road. It’s plainly
obvious that the tire tracks went over the --what the middle of the road
would be.
At this point in the testimony, Plaintiffs’ counsel objected and moved for a mistrial on the
grounds that Officer Dahlsten’s testimony as to the location of the tire tracks in relation to
the middle of the roadway exceeded the scope of what was permitted in the district
court’s pretrial ruling. During a bench conference, the district court overruled the
objection and denied the motion for a mistrial, reasoning that: “Center line can mean
-5-
either two things: either the precise center line, or his observed center line. And you can
explore that on cross-examination.”
In light of the district court’s ruling, Officer Dahlsten completed his answer to
defense counsel’s question as follows:
The northbound tire tracks . . . were driving north on the right half of
the roadway; and as they approached the place where the collision occurred,
you could see just by looking at them that they drifted over what half of the
roadway would be. Even though there was no dividing line, just a visual
observation showed that they were over the middle; and you could see the
southbound tire tracks passing into the same area where they were, and the
two vehicles collided at that point.
Without further objection, defense counsel then continued his questioning as follows:
Q. Thank you. When you said middle, there is no line painted on
this dirt road; is that right?
A. No, there is not.
Q. So can you explain for me what you meant by middle or
center line?
A. Well, just a general observation that anybody would make if
you look at a county road, really no highly scientific way of doing it. You
just look at the road and you just divide it in half as equally as you possibly
can. And just by looking at it, I could tell that one guy was too far over.
When answering the above questions, Officer Dahlsten did not refer to any exhibits or
diagrams showing a measured reconstruction of the respective locations of the two
vehicles’ tire tracks.
On cross-examination, Plaintiffs’ counsel questioned Officer Dahlsten extensively
on the subject of the vehicles’ tire tracks. Plaintiffs’ counsel also showed the officer the
-6-
first page of the accident report in order to point out a clerical error in identifying the
driver of each vehicle. Defense counsel responded by arguing that this reference to the
accident report opened the door to further questioning about its second page, which
contained a diagram depicting the road with a center line and a point of impact. The
district court sustained Plaintiffs’ counsel’s objection to this line of questioning, and thus
Officer Dahlsten was not permitted to testify regarding the diagram he had drawn on the
second page of his accident report.
After the jury rendered its verdict, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial. In their
motion and on appeal, Plaintiffs claim that the district court erred by admitting at trial the
exact type of expert testimony from Officer Dahlsten which previously had been excluded
in the pretrial ruling at the Daubert hearing. That is, when Officer Dahlsten testified at
trial regarding the observed location of the tire tracks in relation to the middle of the
roadway, Plaintiffs contend that the officer overstepped the boundaries of a trained
observer testifying as an accident investigator and assumed the role of an expert witness
testifying as an accident reconstructionist. According to Plaintiffs, this testimony
provided the only evidence from which the jury could have inferred that Plaintiff Donald
Weaver was negligent.
Defendants deny that Officer Dahlsten’s trial testimony was the sole basis for
finding that Plaintiff Donald Weaver was negligent, and they find no contradiction
between the district court’s evidentiary rulings at trial and its pretrial rulings with regard
to the scope of Officer Dahlsten’s role as an accident investigator. According to
-7-
Defendants, the point of these rulings was not to entirely exclude all testimony regarding
the relevant features of the accident scene that Officer Dahlsten observed, but rather to
define the context in which he could describe such features in his testimony. Specifically,
Defendants contend that the district court prohibited Officer Dahlsten from cloaking his
opinions in the precise, measured analysis of an accident reconstructionist, but permitted
him to testify regarding his own observations as a trained accident investigator.
On appeal, we review the district court’s rulings on the admissibility of Officer
Dahlsten’s testimony for abuse of discretion, and we will set aside the jury’s verdict only
if we find an error in these rulings that “prejudicially affects a substantial right of a
party.” Hinds v. Gen. Motors Corp., 988 F.2d 1039, 1049 (10th Cir.1993). Evidence
admitted in error “can only be prejudicial if it can be reasonably concluded that with or
without such evidence, there would have been a contrary result.” Id. See also Webb v.
ABF Freight System, Inc., 155 F.3d 1230, 1246 (10th Cir. 1998). Where a motion for a
new trial asserts that the district court erred in determining the admissibility of evidence,
the verdict must stand unless the district court “‘made a clear error of judgment or
exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.’” Hinds, 988 F.2d at
1046 (quoting Mayhue v. St. Francis Hosp., 969 F.2d 919, 922 (10th Cir.1992)).
Applying this standard, we conclude that any deviation from the district court’s
pretrial rulings on the permissible scope of Officer Dahlsten’s testimony was harmless
error. This is not a case in which a district court entirely abandoned its gatekeeping role
with respect to the admission of expert testimony at trial, nor is it a case where a party
-8-
surreptitiously introduced expert testimony from a witness who had never been
previously disclosed as such. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have made no argument that their
trial presentation or evidence would have differed had they known earlier of the purported
deviation from the pretrial ruling on the scope of Officer Dahlsten’s testimony.
Rather, this case presents a situation where the district court and the parties were
drawing fine distinctions about the permissible scope of a witness’s trial testimony on
subjects that were previously disclosed and subject to rigorous analysis at a Daubert
hearing. Drawing such fine distinctions concerning the scope of an expert’s testimony is
heavily dependent on the particular context in which that testimony is presented at trial,
and therefore this task may not be amenable to a definitive and unequivocal pretrial
ruling.
In similar contexts, we have recognized that even “‘[u]nder the best of
circumstances, counsel must exercise caution in relying exclusively upon rulings made in
connection with pretrial motions in limine as the basis for preserving claims of error in
the admission and exclusion of evidence.’” United States v. Sides, 944 F.2d 1554, 1559
(10th Cir. 1991) (quoting Conway v. Electro Switch Corp., 825 F.2d 593, 596 n. 1 (1st
Cir.1987)). We also have recognized that “‘[p]rudent counsel will renew objections
[ruled on by the district court in a motion in limine] at trial ... [because] most objections
will prove to be dependent on trial context and will be determined to be waived if not
renewed at trial’” Minshall v. McGraw Hill Broadcasting Co., 323 F.3d 1273, 1284 (10th
Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Mejia-Alarcon, 995 F.2d 982, 986 (10th Cir.1993)).
-9-
In light of this recognized need to renew objections at trial, it is generally not reversible
error for a district court to revisit an issue that is the subject of a previous ruling on a
motion in limine. See id.
Here Plaintiffs preserved the issue raised in their motion in limine concerning the
scope of Officer Dahlsten’s expertise by renewing their objection at trial. But we will not
find reversible error simply because, in response to this renewed objection, the district
court chose to reconsider or refine its earlier pretrial ruling in light of the specific context
in which the testimony was presented at trial. Rather, the critical questions are whether
Officer Dahlsten’s trial testimony violated the Daubert principles which the district court
had previously articulated at the pretrial hearing, and if so, what effect this testimony had
on the outcome of the trial.
With respect to the first question, we find it significant that Officer Dahlsten’s trial
testimony about where he observed the tire tracks in relation to the middle of the roadway
was not cloaked under any scientific or technical methodology, nor did he refer to a
diagram or exhibit evincing a measured reconstruction of the accident scene during this
portion of his testimony. Instead, the officer was careful to explain that his remarks about
the location of the middle of the road were based on “just a general observation that
anybody would make if you look at a county road.” Thus, Officer Dahlsten’s trial
testimony on this point has none of the indicia of an expert opinion based on the
specialized methodology or technical measurements of an accident reconstructionist and
instead falls closer to what the district court had earlier characterized as “fact testimony
-10-
based on his observations at the scene.” Plaintiffs’ counsel was free to point out the
absence of such indicia of an expert opinion during cross-examination and closing
argument.
We also conclude that Officer Dahlsten’s trial testimony did not control the
outcome of the trial because even if the jury found it to be credible, the district court’s
instructions to the jury on how to apportion fault between the two drivers did not
necessarily depend on which driver, if any, crossed the center line of the roadway. In
addition to the general negligence instruction based on the duty to exercise reasonable
care, the district court’s jury instructions listed no less than five ways that a person’s
driving could be considered negligent per se:
In this case, the law presumes that when vehicles collide, a driver is
negligent if that driver (1) was on the wrong side of the road at the time of
the collision, or (2) failed to yield one-half of the main travelled portion of a
roadway as nearly as possible, or (3) followed a vehicle more closely than
was reasonable and prudent with regard to the speed of such vehicles, the
traffic upon the roadway, and the condition of the roadway, or (4) drove in a
careless and imprudent manner without regard for the width, grade, curves,
corners, traffic, and all other attendant circumstances, or (5) drove at a
speed greater than was reasonable under the conditions then existing.
These instructions gave the jury several options for apportioning fault between the two
drivers.
For example, there was evidence from which the jury could have reasonably
inferred that both drivers’ visibility was impaired because they were driving through a
cloud of dust generated by a dump truck hauling grain that had traveled on the roadway
shortly before the accident. Thus, the jury could have reasonably inferred that both
-11-
drivers were at fault for continuing to drive through the cloud of dust when their visibility
was impaired, or failing to slow down while driving through the dust cloud. The jury also
may have reasonably inferred that such impaired visibility meant that neither driver could
see exactly where his vehicle was located in relation to the center or side of the roadway,
much less the presence of the other vehicle as it approached in the opposite direction.
It is also significant that the collision at issue here occurred on an unpaved farming
road where the witnesses testified it was customary for drivers to stay closer to the middle
of the roadway in order to avoid sinking into the soft dirt shoulders. In this context, the
unreasonableness of driving closer to the center of the road is not as obvious as it would
be in the case of a wider, paved road with a painted centerline or designated traffic lanes
for each vehicle. A rational fact-finder taking these conditions into account could have
concluded that even if Plaintiff Donald Weaver’s vehicle was traveling closer to the
middle of the roadway than one would expect in the case of a paved and marked street, he
was not traveling on the wrong side of the road or failing to yield half the roadway as
nearly as possible.
Thus, the admission of Officer Dahlsten’s testimony did not require the jury to find
that Plaintiff Donald Weaver was negligent as a matter of law. Indeed, the jury could
have discounted Officer Dahlsten’s testimony entirely based on the points Plaintiffs’
counsel raised during the cross-examination of this witness. For these reasons, we
conclude that it was not reversible error to admit Officer Dahlsten’s trial testimony
concerning where he observed the vehicles’ tire tracks.
-12-
II.
Plaintiffs next challenge the district court’s pretrial ruling on a motion in limine to
exclude evidence that Defendant Chase Blake, who was thirteen years old at the time of
the accident, did not have a valid Colorado driver’s license. In response to this issue,
Defendants point out that evidence touching on Defendant Chase Blake’s age and lack of
a driver’s license was admitted at trial notwithstanding the Court’s pretrial ruling on the
motion in limine. In particular, Plaintiffs’ counsel referred to Defendant Chase Blake’s
lack of a driver’s license during his cross examination of Defendant Rodney Blake. The
district court subsequently instructed the jury on the duty owed by an unlicensed driver,
and Plaintiffs’ counsel again referred to this issue during closing argument.
Given that the jury was presented with some testimony, argument, and instruction
concerning Defendant Chase Blake’s unlicensed status, any error in the district court’s
pretrial ruling on this issue is harmless. As noted above, we will not set aside a jury
verdict based on an error in the admission or exclusion of evidence unless the error
prejudicially affects a substantial right of a party. See Praseuth v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 406
F.3d 1245, 1253 (10th Cir. 2005). “The effect on the jury is only prejudicial if it can be
reasonably concluded that the admission or exclusion made a difference.” Id. It is not
reasonable to conclude that the pretrial ruling which granted Defendants’ motion in limine
to exclude evidence of Defendant Chase Blake’s unlicensed status made any significant
difference in the trial when Plaintiffs were able to present such information to the jury at
trial notwithstanding the district court’s pretrial ruling. Therefore, the district court’s
-13-
pretrial ruling on this issue provides no basis for setting aside the jury’s verdict in this
case.
III.
Plaintiffs also challenge the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on a theory
of negligence per se based on Defendant Chase Blake’s status as an unlicensed driver.
The district court applied the substantive law of the State of Colorado in this case, and
Plaintiffs do not cite any authority from Colorado’s appellate courts which expressly
recognizes a driver’s unlicensed status as the basis for a claim of negligence per se. On
the contrary, Colorado’s appellate courts appear to follow the majority rule that whether
or not a person has a valid driver’s license is irrelevant to the question whether that
person was driving negligently at the time of the accident. See Lawrence v. Taylor, 8
P.3d 607, 610 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000) (citing and following the majority rule in other
jurisdictions).
The rationale for this general rule is that unlike traffic regulations such as speed
limits, licensing statutes do not in themselves create a standard of care that a driver is
expected to meet while operating a motor vehicle. In most cases, it is the driver’s
behavior while operating the vehicle, rather than the lack of a license, that is relevant to
determining the cause of the accident. The standard of care that applies to such behavior
is generally the same regardless of whether the driver is licensed or unlicensed.
Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish this case from the general rule recognized in
Lawrence on the grounds that Defendant Chase Blake’s age brought him within the
-14-
purview of one or more specific statutes applicable to teenage drivers. See Colo. Rev.
Stat. §§ 42-2-104(4)(b), 42-2-105.5 (1999). Neither the teenage-driver statute nor the
general licensing statute, however, create a distinction between the standard of care
required of licensed drivers and that required of unlicensed drivers in this context. These
statutes also do not create a distinction between the standard of care required of adult
drivers and that required of minor drivers.
For these reasons, we conclude that the district court did not err by rejecting such
distinctions and instructing the jury that: “A minor driver has a duty to exercise the same
reasonable care that an adult driver would in the same or similar circumstances. An
unlicensed driver has a duty to exercise the same reasonable care that a licensed driver
would in the same or similar circumstances.” Plaintiffs were not unfairly prejudiced by
this instruction as it gave them ample opportunity to argue that Defendant Chase Blake’s
driving was negligent because it fell below the standard of care required of an adult,
licensed driver.
IV.
Plaintiffs’ next contention is that the district court unduly coerced the jury to reach
a unanimous verdict by placing a time limit on their deliberations on Friday evening. The
record reflects that this case was tried over the course of five days (Monday through
Friday) and was then submitted to a twelve-member jury at 2:44 p.m. on Friday, May 2,
2003. Immediately after the jury retired to commence its deliberations, the district court
met with counsel and informed them that: “I ordinarily allow a jury to deliberate at least
-15-
until 5:00, sometimes a few minutes after 5, but we lose our court security for the jury by
6, so we will not be having deliberations past 6:00 this evening.”
At 5:17 p.m., the district court again met with counsel outside the jury’s presence
and advised that: “We’re getting close to the time that we need to release the jury for the
weekend to reconvene for their deliberations on Monday morning.” The district court
also advised counsel that one of the jurors, Mr. J.H.1, “has a family medical matter that is
arising on Monday” and, therefore, may ask to be excused when the jury was called in at
the end of the day. Unbeknownst to the district court or counsel at that time, the jury had
selected Mr. J.H. to be their foreperson.
At the 5:17 p.m. conference, the district court asked counsel to state their
respective positions in the event that the jury did not return a verdict before the end of the
day and Mr. J.H. asked to be excused from the jury. Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that his
“initial reaction” was
that this is what we discussed, which is that’s why we’re going to have 12
people and if this happens and we have to let someone go we still have 11
people. So I’d kind of like to defer to Mr. Weiss 2 for a moment. My initial
reaction is if he has to go, we have the alternates. But I do want to take a
quick look here.
Defendants’ counsel had no objection to excusing Mr. J.H. at the end of the day “if he
needs to deal with his personal matter.”
1
Out of respect for the juror’s privacy, we redact his full name and refer to him by
his initials in this opinion.
2
Mr. Weiss was Defendants’ trial counsel.
-16-
The jurors continued to deliberate until 5:24 p.m., when they were brought into the
courtroom at the direction of the district court. At that time, the district court instructed
and queried the jury as follows:
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we’re at the end of
the day. We lose our security services in the next half hour, and that is why
I have reconvened here, so that I can release you for the weekend. Before I
do that, let me inquire who has been selected as the foreperson of the jury.
Would you stand, sir, and give us your name.
JUROR: I’m J.H.
THE COURT: Mr. J.H., has the jury considered when they would
like to reconvene tomorrow--or on Monday morning.
JUROR: Your honor, at least two jurors have a conflict on Monday.
We felt, as we just informed the guard, we’re probably within 30 to 40
minutes of reaching a verdict.
THE COURT: Well, we--as I said, we lose our security services at
6:00, no later than 6:00 this evening. I am willing to let you go until 5:45,
but we cannot go beyond that time and still have you out of the building by
the time that we lose our security services. Is it the jury’s desire to continue
to deliberate until 5:45, or would you rather reconvene on Monday
morning?
JUROR: We would like to go until 5:45, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, then. We will excuse you to continue your
deliberations, and we’ll reconvene at 5:45.
After the jury left the courtroom at 5:25 p.m., the district court advised counsel that:
We’ll take a recess until 5:45. And in all fairness, we cannot go
beyond that time, because if we do have a verdict, we need to receive it and
then have the jurors cleared out of the building. If we do not have a verdict
by that time, we nonetheless have to have the jurors cleared out of the
building by 6:00.
-17-
So 5:45 really is a firm time period. I ask that you be in the
courtroom at that time and we’ll reconvene.
We’ll stand in recess till then.
When the district court issued these instructions, neither party stated any objection to the
district court’s handling of the jury deliberations or suggested an alternative that would
have allowed the jury to continue deliberating past 5:45 p.m. on Friday or avoided a
scheduling conflict if deliberations resumed on another date.
About one minute before the 5:45 p.m. deadline, the district court received a note
indicating that jury had reached a verdict. The district court then reconvened in the
courtroom with the jury and counsel present, and the jury returned its verdict finding that
each party was 50% at fault and that Plaintiffs were entitled to zero damages. The jury
was polled and each juror stated that this was their verdict.
After the jury was excused, Plaintiffs challenged the district court’s imposition of
a time limit on the Friday evening jury deliberations by orally moving for a mistrial and
later filing a written motion for a new trial. In their motion and on appeal, Plaintiffs
assert that the district court’s decision to set deadline of 5:45 p.m. on that date was unduly
coercive. They point out that when the district court conveyed this deadline to the jury,
the district court already knew that the jury had estimated they were within 30 to 40
minutes of reaching a verdict and that the jury foreperson, Mr. J.H., as well as one other
juror, indicated they had scheduling conflicts on the following Monday.
-18-
Plaintiffs also cite the general rule that: “It [i]s impermissibly suggestive and
coercive for the Court to place a time fuse on the period of jury deliberation. Such
constitutes reversible error.” Goff v. United States, 446 F.2d 623, 626 (10th Cir. 1971).
As for their failure to timely object to the instructions given to the jury at 5:24 p.m.,
Plaintiffs claim that they were not given a fair opportunity to object on that occasion
because the foreperson’s request to continue deliberating for another 30-40 minutes was
not anticipated at the 5:17 p.m. conference with counsel.
We do not agree with Plaintiffs’ assertion that they lacked a fair chance to object
to the Court’s instruction. If Plaintiffs felt that the jury should be given more time to
deliberate on Friday afternoon, they could have raised this issue either at the 5:17 p.m.
conference, when the district court proposed to recess for the day, or immediately after
the 5:24 p.m. instruction to the jury, at which time Plaintiffs could have pleaded with the
Court for more time or suggested other alternatives to recessing at 5:45 p.m. We also
note that Plaintiffs’ counsel never inquired as to the extent of the two jurors’ alleged
scheduling conflicts on the following Monday, and thus there is no record of whether
these conflicts would in fact have prevented the jury from reconvening to continue
deliberations at some point during the following week.
Insofar as Plaintiffs failed to timely object to the district court’s instruction on this
issue or suggest an alternative, we review the district court’s instructions to the jury for
plain error. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 51; see, e.g., United States v. Ellzey, 936 F.2d
492, 500 (10th Cir. 1991) (applying the plain error test to the issue of whether an Allen
-19-
instruction was unduly coercive). Under this standard of review, a reviewing court will
not reverse unless there is “(1) ‘error,’ (2) that is ‘plain,’ and (3) that ‘affect[s] substantial
rights.’ If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion
to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Johnson v. United States, 520
U.S. 461, 467 (1997) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)).
Instructions that place a time limit on jury deliberations may raise the same type of
concerns as Allen instructions, which are sometimes given during the course of
deliberations when a jury indicates that it is having difficulty coming to a unanimous
verdict. “The ultimate question . . . is whether the . . . instruction was ‘impermissibly
coercive in a way that undermined the integrity of the deliberation process.’” United
States v. McElhiney, 275 F.3d 928, 940 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Porter,
881 F.2d 878, 889 (10th Cir. 1989)). “‘[T]he test effectively turns on a consideration of
whether the court’s instruction imposed such confusion or pressure on the jury to reach a
verdict that the accuracy and integrity of the verdict returned becomes uncertain.’” Id.
(quoting 75B Am.Jur.2d § 1581, at 343). Where an unduly coercive time limit on
deliberations causes grave uncertainty about the accuracy or integrity of a jury’s verdict,
the error may “seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 732; cf. Burroughs v. United States, 365 F.2d 431, 434
(10th Cir. 1966) (reversing a judgment based on a trial court’s impermissibly coercive
-20-
Allen instruction even though the defendant failed to object until after the jury returned its
verdict).
In assessing the “coerciveness” of a court’s jury instructions, we follow a
case-by-case approach, “considering such factors as ‘(1) [t]he language of the instruction,
(2) its incorporation with other instructions; and (3) the timing of the instruction.’”
McElhiney, 275 F.3d at 940 (quoting Porter, 881 F.2d at 888). “The ‘colloquy between
the judge and the jury foreman, [the] circumstances surrounding the giving of the
instruction, and consideration of the American Bar Association Standards on Criminal
Justice Relating to Trial by Jury’ may also be relevant.” Id. (quoting United States v.
Dyba, 554 F.2d 417, 421 (10th Cir.1977)); see also 75B Am. Jur. Trials § 1601 (2005)
(summarizing relevant factors).
In Burroughs, 365 F.2d at 434, we made a distinction between “entreat[ing] . . .
[the jury] to strive toward a verdict by a certain time” and “tell[ing] the jury that if they
have not arrived at a verdict by a stated time, they should return to the court room for
further instructions concerning whether they should deliberate further or be excused until
the next day.” The latter practice is permissible, while the former is not. See id.
Illustrating the former practice is Goff, 446 F.2d at 626, where we found reversible
error in a trial court’s instruction that: “If you cannot (reach a verdict) within, oh, we’ll
say the next hour or so and probably ought to go to lunch first, then, we’ll have to declare
a mistrial and set the case down for hearing again.” Such an instruction “place[d] a time
-21-
fuse on the period of jury deliberation” that “was impermissibly suggestive and coercive.”
Id.
But we reached a different conclusion in Glazerman v. United States, 421 F.2d 547
(10th Cir. 1970), where the trial court gave the following instruction before sending the
jury to deliberate:
Now, I am going to send you to the jury room and ask you to begin your
deliberations; continue your deliberations for a reasonable period of time.
If it appears that you are going to have to take a great deal longer than a
reasonable hour, why send word to me and I will see whether or not I can
allow you to go home for the night and return to complete your
deliberations tomorrow. But, I would like for you to see if you can arrive at
a verdict this afternoon.
Id. at 554. Reviewing this instruction on appeal, we reasoned that:
Absent an indication that the jury was given a very short time to deliberate
that afternoon, we can only conclude that the reasonable impact of the
instruction was to advise the jury that they would be required to work for
only a reasonable length of time that day and if they failed to reach a verdict
by the end of the ordinary work day, the court would dismiss them for the
night and have them return in the morning to complete their deliberations.
We do not favor the words used in this instruction especially since it is
perilously close to the instruction we found objectionable in Burroughs v.
United States, 365 F.2d 431 (10th Cir. 1966). But the circumstances and
context are sufficiently different to require a different conclusion.
Id. While expressing disfavor with some of the language used by the district court in that
case, we concluded that the jury instructions as a whole did not warrant reversal. See id.
We reach a similar conclusion in this case. The district court’s instructions as a
whole were not unduly coercive when viewed in context; however, some of the language
used by the district court came perilously close to suggesting that there was a time limit
-22-
on the jury’s deliberations. When feasible, district courts should strive to accommodate a
jury’s request to continue deliberating on a given date. Requiring court personnel to stay
a reasonable additional amount of time to accommodate a jury’s request to continue
deliberating is ultimately less costly to the administration of justice than requiring an
entire case to be retried because of an unduly coercive time limit on jury deliberations.
The fact that the work schedules of courthouse security personnel influenced the
district court’s decision-making on this point does not make its instruction to the jury
immune from review or subject to a lesser standard than we apply in other cases. See
United States v. Smith, 426 F.3d 567, 571-72 (2d Cir. 2005). In this regard, the district
court’s remarks to the jury cannot be dismissed as mere “observations” about the work
schedules of other agencies or personnel beyond the district court’s control. See
McElhiney, 275 F.3d at 941. Regardless of who controls the work schedules of
courthouse security personnel, it is the district court’s responsibility to instruct the jury in
a manner that does not place an unduly coercive time limit on their deliberations. Cf.
Smith, 426 F.3d at 576 (expressing similar concerns about a district court’s duties
regarding courthouse security measures that implicate the Sixth Amendment right to a
public trial and the First Amendment right to courtroom access).
Adherence to these principles, however, did not preclude the district court from
setting a firm stopping point for the jury to discontinue its deliberations on Friday evening
so long as the options for resuming deliberations at another date and time were kept open.
We recognize that in some circumstances, requiring the jury to continue its deliberations
-23-
late into the evening could be viewed as more coercive than requiring them to go home
and return during the following week. Cf. Porter, 881 F.2d at 889 (noting that, in the
context of an Allen charge, “[t]he judge further alleviated any sense of coercion by
excusing the jury until the following morning”).
Other courts that have addressed similar concerns generally afford trial judges
wide latitude in determining “the length of time that the jury will be allowed to deliberate
on a given day.” See, e.g., Williams v. State, 422 S.E.2d 309, 311 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
Thus, for example, the Georgia Court of Appeals concluded that there was no abuse of
discretion in setting a 6:00 p.m. time limit on jury deliberations when it was clear that the
jury would be permitted to resume deliberations the following day if they did not reach a
verdict by that time. See id. at 311-12. And the Georgia Supreme Court reasoned that it
was not unduly coercive for a trial court to suggest that a jury recess for the weekend
because “the surrounding parking garages closed at 6:00 o’clock,” so long as jurors were
left with the option to continue deliberating after this instruction was given. Holland v.
Morse, 210 S.E.2d 734, 736 (Ga. 1974).
While we do not endorse the precise language of the district court’s instruction in
this case, we nevertheless conclude that the jury was not coerced to such a degree as to
call into question the accuracy or integrity of its verdict. As in Holland, 210 S.E.2d at
736, it was the jury, not the judge, that asked to continue deliberations when the
courthouse closing time approached, and the jury’s foreperson only estimated, and did not
demand, that it would take an additional 30-40 minutes to reach a verdict. Thus, it is
-24-
reasonable to infer that when given the opportunity to deliberate further, the jurors simply
found that they were able to reach a verdict in less than the amount of time that the
foreperson had previously estimated.
Because the jury reached its verdict before the 5:45 p.m. deadline, the district court
never had occasion to reach the issue of whether the two jurors who said they could not
return on Monday would need to be excused, or whether there was some other way to
accommodate their schedules. The record does not reflect that counsel suggested any
alternatives to the schedule for completing deliberations that the district court employed,
and since the district court seated a twelve-member jury, it was possible for up to six
jurors to be excused without violating the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 48. Under
these circumstances, a finding that the jury was unduly coerced because two of the twelve
jurors expressed a need to avoid scheduling conflicts on the following Monday would be
based on speculation rather than reasonable inference. Accordingly, we conclude that the
district court’s decision to place a 5:45 p.m. time limit on jury deliberations on Friday
evening does not provide a basis for setting aside the jury’s verdict in this case.
V.
Plaintiffs’ final challenge on appeal concerns the verdict form, which asked the
jury to determine the amount of Plaintiffs’ damages separately from its apportionment of
fault between the parties. The jury wrote in “$0” for the amount of Plaintiffs’ damages
and then found that each party (Plaintiffs and Defendants) was 50% at fault.
-25-
In fashioning the verdict form, the district court applied Colorado’s comparative
negligence law, which provides that a plaintiff is not entitled to collect any damages from
a defendant if the plaintiff’s percentage of responsibility is fifty percent or more. See
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111(1) (2005) (“Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery
in any action by any person or his legal representative to recover damages for negligence
resulting in death or in injury to person or property, if such negligence was not as great as
the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought . . . .”) (emphasis added);
Lonardo v. Livtak Meat Co., 676 P.2d 1229, 1231 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983) (recognizing this
principle). In accordance with Colorado law, the jury was instructed that: “if you find
that Mr. Weaver’s percentage of responsibility is 50 percent or more, the Plaintiff will not
recover any damages.” Thus, there is no inconsistency between the jury’s verdict
awarding zero damages and the 50% apportionment of fault between the parties, because
a plaintiff who is at least fifty percent at fault is not entitled to an award of damages under
Colorado law. See Lonardo, 676 P.2d at 1231-32.
It is true that the procedure specified in Colorado law also calls for a jury to first
determine “[t]he amount of the damages which would have been recoverable if there had
been no contributory negligence” and then determine “[t]he degree of negligence of each
party, expressed as a percentage.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111(2). If the jury had
correctly followed this procedure by first determining the total amount of damages
irrespective of the apportionment of fault, then its award of zero damages would not be
consistent with the parties’ stipulation at trial that Plaintiff Donald K. Weaver’s losses for
-26-
past and future household services were $59,200, and his future medical expenses were
$50,000.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs contend that the jury should have entered a number equal
to or greater than these amounts on the verdict form and only then apportioned fault
between the parties to arrive at the conclusion that Plaintiffs were not entitled to any
damages. Instead, the jury appears to have apportioned fault first and then entered “zero”
in the damages column based on its finding that Plaintiff Donald Weaver was fifty
percent at fault. Plaintiffs speculate that this error might have occurred because the jurors
were rushed when the district court told them they could only deliberate until 5:45 p.m.
on Friday evening.
We conclude that the jury’s procedural error in filling out the verdict form is
harmless because their apportionment of fault is entirely dispositive under Colorado law.
See Lonardo, 676 P.2d at 1232. Given the jury’s finding that Plaintiff Donald Weaver
was fifty percent at fault, it would not have mattered what figure the jury entered in the
damages column. Upon receiving a jury’s verdict that the proportion of Plaintiffs’
negligence “is equal to or greater than the negligence of the person against whom
recovery is sought,” Colorado’s comparative negligence law requires the court to “enter a
judgment for the defendant.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111(3). For these reasons, the
manner in which the jury filled out the verdict form does not provide grounds for
reversing the district court’s judgment.
-27-
VI.
Defendants have filed a conditional cross appeal challenging the district court’s
decision to exclude the expert testimony of Stephen Fenton, P.E., an engineer whom
Defendants had retained to opine on the subject of accident reconstruction. We do not
have occasion to reach this issue because we affirm the district court’s judgment in
Defendants’ favor. “A party who is not aggrieved by a judgment ordinarily may not
appeal from it.” United States v. Lewis County, 175 F.3d 671, 679 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing
Deposit Guaranty Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 333 (1980)). Because we do not
reverse the district court’s judgment in Defendants’ favor, there is no basis to hear a
cross-appeal that is conditioned on reversal of that judgment. See Guile v. United States,
422 F.3d 221, 231 n.14 (5th Cir. 2005); Kearney v. J.P. King Auction Co., 265 F.3d 27,
30 n.3 (1st Cir. 2001). We therefore dismiss Defendants’ cross-appeal as moot.
VII.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and
Defendants’ cross appeal is DISMISSED as moot.
-28-