## Facts

- St. Louis police officers stopped Sorkis Sanders-El on May 19, 1989, pursuant to an arrest warrant, arrested him, handcuffed him, and placed him in a police vehicle.
- Sanders-El kicked open the squad-car door and fled while still handcuffed; officers pursued and recaptured him, after which he suffered injuries to his eye, face, and head.
- Sanders-El filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging the officers used excessive force during the recapture.
- The case was tried twice before a magistrate judge by consent: the first trial ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury; the second ended in a defense verdict.
- Before the second trial, the court indicated felony convictions could be used for impeachment but arrests and probation violations would not be admitted.
- During cross-examination at the second trial, defense counsel theatrically dropped a lengthy computer printout in front of the jury, creating the impression it reflected an extensive arrest-and-conviction history.
- The magistrate judge admonished defense counsel outside the jury’s presence and imposed sanctions, but denied a mistrial and did not provide a remedy sufficient to remove the effect on the jury.

## Issues

1. Whether the defense’s deliberate attempt to convey inadmissible, highly prejudicial criminal-history information, together with related trial errors, likely influenced the verdict such that a new trial was required.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial or new trial despite counsel misconduct and inadequate curative measures.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment for the officers and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that defense counsel’s conduct was intentionally prejudicial and likely affected the jury’s decision.
- The court concluded the trial court’s response (admonition and sanctions) did not sufficiently cure the prejudice, making the denial of a new trial an abuse of discretion.
- A dissent would have affirmed, concluding the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion.

## Legal Principles

- A new trial is required when prejudicial errors or attorney misconduct likely influence the jury’s verdict and are not adequately cured.
- Trial courts have discretion in ruling on mistrials and new trials, but that discretion is abused when substantial prejudice remains uncorrected.
- Counsel may not circumvent evidentiary limits by conduct intended to convey inadmissible information to the jury under the guise of impeachment.

## Conclusion

The appellate court ordered a new trial because defense counsel deliberately created the impression of a broad criminal record contrary to the court’s evidentiary limits, and the trial court’s sanctions and admonition did not remove the resulting prejudice from the jury’s deliberations.


Sanders-El v. Wencewicz, 987 F.2d 483 (8th Cir. 1993)