Carr v. Deeds
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
453 F.3d 593 (2006)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
On June 20, 2001, Trooper V. S. Deeds (defendant) arrested Joshua Morgan. Morgan’s mother, Sharon Carr (plaintiff), along with Morgan’s stepfather and brother, visited Morgan at the police station and found him to have various physical injuries, including a cut lip and an abrasion on his abdomen. On July 10, 2001, Deeds and another officer attempted to arrest Morgan again. Morgan died during the attempt. Carr sued Deeds and the State of West Virginia (defendants), alleging that Deeds and another trooper applied excessive force against Morgan after the arrest in June and the attempted arrest in July. At trial, Carr sought to testify and to call Morgan’s stepfather and brother to testify about their visit to the police station. Deeds had been in the room during the visit, and the witnesses sought to testify that when they asked Morgan about his injuries, he pointed to or otherwise indicated that Deeds caused them. The witnesses also planned to testify that Deeds did not respond when Morgan so indicated. The district court excluded the testimony on the ground that Morgan’s indications were hearsay. The district court granted the state’s motion for summary judgment. Carr appealed, arguing that Deeds adopted Morgan’s indications about his involvement in the injuries by not responding.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Traxler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
