## Facts

- Thomas B. Luka, an attorney proceeding pro se, was arrested outside a bar in Orlando, Florida by Orlando Police Officer Anthony Miller.
- Luka sued the City of Orlando and related defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging (among other claims) that Miller used excessive force during the arrest.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
- To support his excessive-force claim, Luka sought to introduce evidence that a large number of excessive-force complaints—identified at trial as 68—had been filed against Miller during Miller’s four years as a police officer.
- The district court excluded the prior-complaints evidence, treating it as improper character/propensity evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and concluding it also raised substantial concerns under Rule 403.
- The jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
- Luka appealed, challenging the exclusion of the prior-complaints evidence and arguing that the jury instructions on excessive force were erroneous.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of 68 prior excessive-force complaints against Officer Miller under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403.
2. Whether the district court committed reversible error in instructing the jury on Luka’s excessive-force claim.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for the defendants.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion in excluding evidence of the 68 prior excessive-force complaints because Luka offered the evidence primarily to show Miller’s character for using excessive force and to infer conduct in conformity with that character, which Rule 404(b) forbids.
- The court further held that, even apart from Rule 404(b), excluding the complaints was justified under Rule 403 due to the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, and side litigation over the truth of each complaint.
- The court rejected Luka’s jury-instruction challenge, concluding that the instructions, read as a whole, adequately stated the governing excessive-force standard and did not warrant reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings is highly deferential; a district court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) bars using other acts (including prior allegations or complaints) to prove a person’s character and that the person acted in conformity with that character on the occasion in suit.
- Even when evidence has some relevance, Federal Rule of Evidence 403 permits exclusion if the probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or wasting time.
- Evidence consisting of numerous prior complaints against an officer may be excluded where it invites mini-trials about each complaint and risks shifting the jury’s focus away from what happened in the incident being tried.
- Jury instructions are evaluated in their entirety; reversal is warranted only when the charge misstates the law or misleads the jury in a way that affects the outcome.

## Conclusion

Luka v. City of Orlando affirmed a defense verdict in a § 1983 excessive-force case arising from an arrest outside an Orlando bar, holding that the district court properly excluded evidence of 68 prior excessive-force complaints against the arresting officer as prohibited propensity evidence under Rule 404(b) and as unfairly prejudicial and confusing under Rule 403, and that the excessive-force jury instructions, viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed the applicable legal standard.


Luka v. City of Orlando, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 12008 (2010)