Julie Ann Blind-Doan v. Bron Sanders, Officer

Opinion by Judge NOONAN; Dissent by Judge FERNANDEZ.

*1081 OPINION

Julie Ann Blind-Doan (Doan or the plaintiff) appeals the judgment following jury trial in the Eastern District of California in favor of Bron Sanders (Sanders or the defendant) in her action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , the Fourth Amendment, and California law. The principal issue on appeal is the in limine exclusion of evidence sought to be offered by the plaintiff on prior sexual assaults by the defendant and of other evidence bearing on the identity and opportunity of the defendant to assault the plaintiff. We hold that the magistrate-judge failed to make a clear record to support his exclusion of the evidence of sexual assault and by this and another ruling on evidence prejudiced the plaintiff. We reverse the judgment of the district court.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

We begin with the undisputed facts and go on to the facts that Doan unsuccessfully sought to prove. On the evening of Friday, January 31, 1997, the plaintiff and her companion Terry Doan turned themselves in to the Taft City Police after having been told the police were looking for them on a child neglect charge. They were booked and held in the local…

Dissenting.

I dissent because I do not agree that a district court must explicitly set out its *1084 thought processes on the record, even if it is “important” that it “make a clear record concerning its decision.” See Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1268-69 (9th Cir.2000). Once over that hurdle, it is clear to me that the court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to admit the lurid, highly inflammatory, generally irrelevant evidence in question here. 1 While it is not surprising to see it happen, I think it is most unfortunate that the hortatory language of Glanzer has now become an absolute rule — so absolute that it is now used to reverse a trial court decision which was made before the opinion even issued.

Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

. The court evenhandedly also kept out similarly lurid evidence about Blind-Doan, her activities, and her credibility.

. It seems to me that, as is all too often the case, Glanzer’s hortatory declamation turned a dies juridicus into a dies infaustus.

291 F.3d 1079 Julie Ann BLIND-DOAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bron SANDERS, Officer, Defendant-Appellee. No. 00-17194. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 13, 2002. Filed May 28, 2002. Kevin G. Little, Frampton, Williams & Little, Fresno, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant. Larry F. Peake, Wall, Wall & Peake, Bakersfield, CA, for the defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Lawrence J. O'Neill, United States Magistrate Judge, Presiding. D.C. CV-98-05103-LJO. Before REINHARDT, NOONAN and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge NOONAN; Dissent by Judge FERNANDEZ. OPINION NOONAN, Circuit Judge. 1 Julie Ann Blind-Doan (Doan or the plaintiff) appeals the judgment following jury trial in the Eastern District of California in favor of Bron Sanders (Sanders or the defendant) in her action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , the Fourth Amendment, and California law. The principal issue on appeal is the in limine exclusion of evidence sought to be offered by the plaintiff on prior sexual assaults by the defendant and of other evidence bearing on the identity and opportunity of the…