Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa

of force was reasonable because they demonstrate the severity of the crime at issue during
the arrest. Thus, the names of the charges are admissible.
Turning to the admissibility of Shannon’s conviction, the Supreme Court has also
identified “whether [the suspect] is actively resisting arrest” as a relevant factor in
determining the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a conviction for a crime, such as
interference with official acts or assault of an official, which occurs during an alleged use
of excessive force, is relevant evidence in determining the reasonableness of the official’s
conduct. See Grant v. Farnsworth, 869 F.2d 1149, 1151 (8th Cir. 1989) (finding, where
an Iowa man was convicted of interference with official acts and then sued for excessive
force arising from the same incident, that “[e]vidence of Grant’s conviction for
interference with official acts is relevant to this action because it precludes the relitigation
of the facts and issues that were necessary for the state court jury to convict Grant.” (citing
Oldham v. Pritchett, 599 F.2d 274, 279 (8th Cir. 1979))); see also Cummings v. Malone,
995 F.2d 817, 825 (8th Cir. 1993) (concluding, where plaintiff was convicted under
Missouri law of assaulting an official and later sued that official for excessive force arising
from the same incident, that “refusing to allow appellants to introduce Cummings’ prior
conviction would improperly allow him to contest in this case a fact conclusively decided
against him in the earlier criminal case.” (citing Grant, 869 F.2d at 1151)). But see
Henderson v. Munn, 439 F.3d 497, 500 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting, although the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals did not reach this issue for lack of jurisdiction, that the district
court had found that, under Arkansas law, the plaintiff was not estopped from arguing that
he did not resist arrest in his subsequent § 1983 case, even after he was convicted of
resisting arrest and obstructing governmental operations).
23