## Facts

- Francis J. McQueeney, a second officer (seaman) aboard the supertanker T/T WILLIAMSBURG, alleged he was injured on March 20, 1981, while the vessel was docked at Hound’s Point, Scotland.
- McQueeney claimed he was knocked down while handling a water hose due to hose overpressure and oil spilled on the deck, causing a herniated cervical disc and reduced ability to work thereafter.
- He sued Wilmington Trust Company (owner) and Anndep Steamship Corporation (operator) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the Jones Act and general maritime law, seeking substantial damages, including for diminished post-injury sea service.
- Shortly before trial, McQueeney identified Mauro De la Cerda as an eyewitness; De la Cerda’s deposition purported to corroborate McQueeney’s account.
- Defendants obtained crew lists indicating De la Cerda was not aboard at the time of the incident, supporting an inference that the deposition was false and that McQueeney may have arranged false testimony.
- Defendants also sought to introduce McQueeney’s Sea Service Records (produced by McQueeney in discovery) to challenge his claim of reduced post-injury sailing and related damages.
- The district court excluded (1) the De la Cerda-related evidence on relevance and Rule 403 grounds and (2) the Sea Service Records for lack of authentication under Rule 901.
- The jury awarded McQueeney $305,788; the district court denied a new trial; defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence suggesting a party procured false testimony is admissible as substantive circumstantial proof bearing on the validity of the party’s claim, even if the purported witness does not testify at trial, under Rules 401 and 403.
2. Whether Sea Service Records produced by a party in discovery may be authenticated under Rule 901 through circumstantial evidence without a sponsoring witness.
3. What standard governs nonconstitutional harmless error for evidentiary rulings in civil cases under Rule 103(a).

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The district court erred by excluding evidence related to the De la Cerda deposition and crew lists; the evidence was relevant and the Rule 403 analysis was an abuse of discretion.
- The district court erred by excluding the Sea Service Records; they were sufficiently authenticated by circumstantial indicia, including production by McQueeney and facial regularity.
- The court adopted the standard that nonconstitutional evidentiary error in a civil case is harmless only if it is “highly probable” the error did not affect the outcome.
- Applying that standard, the errors were not harmless because they bore on core credibility and the damages calculation.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence permitting an inference that a litigant fabricated evidence or procured false testimony is relevant to the merits because it can show consciousness that the litigant’s claim is weak or unfounded.
- Rule 403 does not permit exclusion merely because evidence is damaging; “unfair prejudice” requires a concrete risk of improper jury use that substantially outweighs probative value, and limiting instructions may mitigate risk.
- Rule 901 authentication may be established by circumstantial evidence; documents produced by a party in discovery, appearing regular and consistent on their face, may be admitted without a custodian’s testimony, leaving weight and credibility to the jury.
- For nonconstitutional evidentiary errors in civil cases, reversal is required unless it is highly probable the error did not affect the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that excluding (1) evidence supporting an inference that the plaintiff procured false corroboration and (2) the plaintiff’s sea-service records was erroneous and not harmless under a “highly probable” standard, requiring a new trial.


McQueeney v. Wilmington Tr. Co., 779 F.2d 916 (3d Cir. 1985)