## Facts

- Arthur Wayne Carson sued the Dallas County sheriff and several deputies, and a Dallas County constable and several deputies, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state-law claims.
- Carson alleged he was arrested without probable cause and subjected to excessive force during the arrest and booking process.
- Carson’s account was that officers in plain clothes stopped him near a police station parking lot, did not identify themselves or explain charges, and used escalating force after he attempted to walk away.
- Carson alleged officers struck and kicked him, restrained his wrists and ankles, and left him face-down while tightly cuffed, causing significant injuries.
- A major factual dispute concerned whether Carson had a knife at the time of arrest; Carson denied possessing any knife.
- At the second trial, defendants offered a knife as demonstrative evidence; the trial court ruled it could be shown only as illustrative (not as the actual knife taken from Carson).
- Despite that limitation, a defense witness testified before the jury that the knife presented was “the knife” taken from Carson.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial after the first jury returned a verdict for Carson.
2. Whether the second trial was rendered unfair by admitting a knife only for illustrative purposes but allowing testimony identifying it as the actual knife seized from Carson.
3. Whether other procedural and evidentiary errors at the second trial, considered together, required reversal.
4. Whether discovery sanctions imposed on defendants were proper under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit declined to reinstate the first jury’s verdict, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial after the first trial.
- The court held Carson did not receive a fair trial in the second proceeding due to significant evidentiary and procedural error.
- The court found reversible error where a knife admitted only as illustrative evidence was presented to the jury as the actual knife allegedly taken from Carson.
- The judgment for defendants from the second trial was set aside, and the case was remanded for another trial on the federal and pendent state claims.
- On defendants’ cross-appeal, the court reviewed the discovery-sanctions ruling under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

## Legal Principles

- A district court has broad discretion to grant a new trial when inadmissible evidence reaches the jury or evidentiary rulings compromise trial fairness; appellate review is deferential.
- Demonstrative or illustrative evidence admitted for a limited purpose must be used consistently with that limitation; treating such evidence as the actual disputed item may mislead the jury on a material fact and warrant reversal.
- In § 1983 wrongful-arrest and excessive-force cases, evidence concerning a claimed weapon can bear directly on probable cause and the reasonableness of force, increasing the risk of prejudice if the evidence is mischaracterized.
- Discovery sanctions and related trial-management rulings are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld the trial court’s decision to grant a new trial after Carson’s initial jury victory but reversed the defense verdict from the second trial because the jury was misled by knife evidence admitted only for illustrative purposes, and it remanded for a third trial while reviewing discovery sanctions deferentially.


Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1982)