This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

On August 1, 2014, after finishing work, P went home, drank a couple of beers, and fell asleep. He awoke at 1:20 a.m. and decided to purchase more beer. P rushed to a nearby Thornton's store. When he entered Thornton's, he noticed a uniformed police officer, Hillman (D), providing security for the store outside of his regular hours as a police officer. The store clerk told P, 'I'm not serving you' because 'I think you've had too much to drink already anyway.' The store clerk also told Harden that she smelled alcohol on his breath. Harden tried explaining that he had only had a couple of beers many hours earlier. The store clerk did not change her mind. Harden then exclaimed, 'I don't believe this.' D shouted, 'Didn't she say she wasn't selling you any beer?' When P confirmed the store clerk's statement, D said, 'Well, get out of the store right now and don't come back.' P left but realized that he would not be able to make it anywhere else before 2:00 a.m. He decided to give up on buying beer and to, instead, purchase a bag of chips from Thorntons. While he was in the store, D said, 'I thought I told you not to come back in here.' D then ran over to P and pinned him against the counter. D told him, 'You get out of the store right now and don't come back, or I'm going to take you to jail.' D replied, 'Well, take me to jail.' D then allegedly picked P up off the ground, slammed him down onto the floor, and handcuffed him. P told D that 'I need to go to the doctor. I'm hurt pretty bad. You've messed up my back,' D called for emergency medical services, which transported P to the Hospital. D issued P a citation for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and public intoxication. P was released that same night. The charges against P were eventually dismissed after D failed to appear in court. P filed suit in the district court against P; Thornton's, Inc.; and Hillman's employer, the City of Heritage Creek. The claims against Thornton's and Heritage Creek were all dismissed. Only P's excessive force claim against D in Count I proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of D on the excessive force claim. P filed a Motion for New Trial based on both the district court's refusal to order the Marshals Service to serve his subpoenas and on D's counsel allegedly making improper arguments to the jury. The district court denied the motion. P filed a second Motion for New Trial along with an affidavit from Juror T.H. In her affidavit, T.H., an African American woman, stated that her 'service on the jury was a very painful, humiliating, and embarrassing experience, so much so that it has caused me not to ever again want to serve on another jury. I feel this way because of the blatant racial stereotyping, bias, and prejudice shown by my fellow jurors toward P and his legal team.' Her 'fellow jurors, all of whom were white, spoke freely in [her] presence because they thought [she] was Latin[a] because of [her] complexion and the pronunciation of [her] name.' The jurors totally disregarded P's testimony in particular and his case in general because they believed he was a crack addict, and that his intent was to start trouble so he could sue the police department and get some money,' and that '[t]hey discredited his testimony and attributed the calmness he showed in describing the events by claiming that he was taking dope or drinking during breaks in the trial.' They described P's African American lawyer and his team as the'Cosby Show. The jurors 'kept saying he just wants money; he's a crack head; he's an alcoholic; look at his wife, she's nodding off; she looks like she's on heroin.' T.H. stated: It is my very firm and absolute belief that P did not get a fair trial because of his race and racial stereotyping. Furthermore, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the race of the lawyers was a significant factor. The court granted D's motion to exclude T.H.'s affidavit and denied P's motion for a new trial, citing rule 606(b), barring the introduction of evidence about jury deliberations, and that none of the exceptions to this no-impeachment rule applied. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.