## Facts

- Julie Ann Blind-Doan was detained in the Taft City, California jail after turning herself in on a child-neglect charge.
- Early the next morning, she loudly requested toiletries; a dispatcher summoned Sergeant Bron Sanders, who assisted her, allowed a phone call, and escorted her back to her cell.
- Doan testified that Sanders entered her cell, threatened to “teach her a lesson,” overpowered her, and sexually assaulted her by inserting a police baton into her vagina.
- Sanders admitted entering the cell but denied carrying a baton or assaulting her.
- The dispatcher testified she saw Sanders return Doan to the cell, observed no physical contact, heard no threats, and did not see Sanders with a baton; she also testified another person was waiting for Sanders in the dispatch area at that time.
- Doan sued Sanders under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment, plus related California claims, based on the alleged custodial sexual assault.
- Before trial, Doan sought to introduce testimony from multiple women alleging prior sexual assaults or sexual misconduct by Sanders under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 415, and additional “other acts” evidence under Rule 404(b).
- The district court excluded much of the proffered evidence in limine with limited explanation; after a jury trial, judgment was entered for Sanders.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding proffered evidence of prior sexual assaults/sexual misconduct and other acts under Rules 413, 415, 404(b), and 403 without making an adequate record of its reasoning and Rule 403 balancing.
2. Whether the exclusion of that evidence (together with another evidentiary ruling) prejudiced Doan such that a new trial was required.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment for Sanders and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the trial court failed to create an adequate record supporting exclusion of Doan’s proffered Rules 413/415 evidence and related other-acts evidence, including the required Rule 403 balancing.
- Given the credibility-driven nature of the case, the evidentiary errors were prejudicial.
- A dissent would have affirmed, concluding the rulings were within the trial court’s discretion and not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal.

## Legal Principles

- In civil cases involving alleged sexual assault, evidence of a defendant’s other sexual assaults or sexual misconduct may be admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 415, subject to Rule 403.
- When admitting or excluding Rules 413/415 evidence, the trial court must conduct a careful Rule 403 analysis and make a clear on-record explanation showing how probative value was weighed against risks such as unfair prejudice.
- Relevant considerations in the Rule 403 assessment of sexual-assault propensity evidence include similarity to the alleged conduct, temporal proximity, frequency, and the availability of alternative proof.
- Potentially admissible “other acts” evidence under Rule 404(b) likewise requires an articulated Rule 403 balancing and stated reasoning sufficient for appellate review.
- When a case largely turns on a credibility contest, erroneous exclusion of admissible propensity or other-acts evidence bearing on credibility and disputed conduct can be prejudicial and require a new trial.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit ordered a new trial because the trial court excluded proffered prior sexual-misconduct and related other-acts evidence without an adequate, on-record Rule 403 analysis, an error deemed prejudicial in a case turning primarily on competing witness credibility.


Blind-Doan v. Sanders, 291 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2002)