Whether the Court should adopt a more flexible standard of admissibility of evidence than Huddleston v. U.S. under Rules 403 and 404(b) in civil police liability cases involving plaintiffs with criminal histories

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case involves the shooting death of Gregory Hill which occurred during a police response to a loud music call, in St. Lucie County, Florida. An intoxicated Hill who was on probation confronted Deputies with a gun in his hand when he opened his garage door in response to their knocking. Hill’s probation status did not permit him to possess a firearm or consume alcohol. Ina pre-trial ruling, over Plaintiff's objection, the Trial Court, after considering Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403 and 404(b), agreed to admit the Defendants’ evidence of Hill’s probationary status to explain his actions in response to the Deputies, with the use of a limiting instruction. However, during Plaintiff's case, Plaintiff introduced evidence that Hill was not on probation and suggested he had a right to possess a gun, facts the Defendants were entitled to rebut. The Eleventh Circuit panel reversed the judgment in favor of the Defendants and remanded for a new trial. The questions presented are: Whether this Court should adopt a more flexible standard of admissibility of evidence than what is required by Huddleston v. U.S., 485 U.S. 681 (1988) under Rules 403 and 404(b), regarding the determination of prejudice in civil police liability cases, which often involve Plaintiffs who are on probation, have criminal histories, warrants, or possess evidence of a crime that is unknown to the officer but helps explain their response to law enforcement officers performing their duties? ii Did the Eleventh Circuit panel disregard the appropriate standards of review and the appropriate application of the harmless error rule, making themselves impregnable citadels of technicality in this case, resulting in a departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power?