## Facts

- Mario Simmons sued three Detroit police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Michigan law, alleging excessive force during his arrest and related torts (assault and battery; false arrest/false imprisonment).
- The central trial dispute was whether the officers used unreasonable force; the officers contended any force was necessary and reasonable.
- The district court conducted voir dire itself after receiving proposed written questions from counsel, and it declined to permit attorney-conducted questioning.
- During voir dire, the court questioned prospective jurors about potential bias favoring police officers and removed at least one juror for cause based on pro-police bias.
- Simmons sought to introduce evidence that one officer had a prior “history of aggression” to suggest he acted aggressively during Simmons’s arrest; the district court excluded the evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404.
- A jury returned a verdict for all officers on all claims, and judgment was entered for the defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in using judge-led voir dire and declining to ask all plaintiff-proposed questions or permit attorney questioning, particularly regarding potential bias in favor of police.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of an officer’s alleged prior aggressive conduct under Federal Rule of Evidence 404.
3. Whether the combined effect of the voir dire and evidentiary rulings denied Simmons an impartial jury and a fair trial requiring a new trial.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the officers.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 47(a) in conducting voir dire and selecting which proposed questions to ask.
- The court held exclusion of the officer “history of aggression” evidence was proper because it was offered as impermissible propensity (character) evidence under Rule 404.
- The court rejected the claim that the rulings, individually or cumulatively, deprived Simmons of a fair trial.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 47(a), the trial court may conduct voir dire itself; parties have no automatic right to attorney-conducted questioning.
- The trial court has broad discretion over the method and scope of voir dire; reversal requires a clear abuse of discretion, and the inquiry is whether voir dire was reasonably sufficient to uncover material bias.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 404 generally bars character or prior-acts evidence offered to prove conduct in conformity on the occasion in dispute; prior acts may be admitted only for a valid non-propensity purpose and remain subject to exclusion under Rule 403.
- Evidentiary and trial-management rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and reversal requires a showing of prejudice affecting substantial rights.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit left intact a jury verdict for police officers in a civil-rights excessive-force case, holding that judge-led voir dire adequately addressed potential pro-police bias and that excluding prior “aggression” evidence as propensity character evidence was a permissible exercise of the district court’s discretion.


Simmons v. Napier, 626 F. App’x 129 (6th Cir. 2015)