The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:15-CV-451-BO
RAYMOND TARLTON, as guardian ad litem for )
HENRY LEE MCCOLLUM, er al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
V. ) ORDER
)
KENNETH SEALEY, both individually and in his_)
official capacity as Sheriff of Robeson County, )
etal., )
)
Defendants. )
This cause comes before the Court on a motion by defendants Kenneth Sealey and Robert
E. Price, Administrator C.T.A. of the Estate of Joel Garth Locklear, Sr., for bifurcation of trial to
try the issue of qualified immunity first, and for special interrogatories. Defendants Leroy Allen
and Charlotte Noel Fox, Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth Snead, have moved to join the
motion to bifurcate the trial so as to try the issue of qualified immunity first based upon special
interrogatories. Plaintiffs have responded in opposition to the motion for bifurcation, defendants
Sealey and Price have replied, and the matters are ripe for ruling. For the reasons that follow, the
motion for bifurcation is granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
This case stems from the wrongful conviction of two brothers, both teenaged boys
with severe intellectual disabilities, for the rape and murder of an 11 year old girl
in 1983. Henry McCollum and Leon Brown . . . spent 31 years in prison and on
death row before being exonerated based on DNA evidence linking another
individual, a man who was known to officers at the time of the investigation, to the
crime. Following their release from prison, [plaintiffs] brought this case pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the state and county law enforcement officers
investigating the crime violated their Fourth Amendment and due process rights.
Gilliam v. Sealey, 932 F.3d 216, 221-22 (4th Cir. 2019) (footnote omitted). This Court denied
defendants’ motion for summary judgment and its order was affirmed by the court of appeals. Jd.
The jury trial is currently set to commence on May 10, 2021.
DISCUSSION
At the outset, the Court GRANTS the motion by defendants Allen and Fox to join the
motion for bifurcation.
Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures provides that a court may order separate
trials of one or more separate issues or claims for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite
or economize. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). The burden is on the party requesting separate trials to
convince a court to allow them. F & G Scrolling Mouse, L.L.C. v. IBM Corp., 190 F.R.D. 385, 387
(M.D.N.C. 1999). Whether to allow for separate trials on different issues is within the discretion
of the trial judge. Bowie v. Sorrell, 209 F.2d 49, 51 (4th Cir. 1953).
Defendants have failed to satisfy their burden to show that bifurcation of the issues is
appropriate in this case. Separate trials on qualified immunity and liability and damages would
result in duplicative, inefficient, and lengthy trials should the facts not support a finding of
qualified immunity. Witnesses presented during the qualified immunity phase would need to
testify again during the liability and damages phase, resulting in both inconvenience and the risk
of juror confusion. Defendants have further not shown they would suffer any prejudice by
proceeding with one trial. Although defendants stress the importance of resolving the question of
qualified immunity early in the litigation,
[e]arly resolution of qualified immunity justifies withholding discovery while the
court considers a motion to dismiss on that basis and, if dismissal is not warranted,
allowing only limited discovery for purposes of summary judgment on the
immunity question. But once it is clear that such early resolution is impossible, trial
is necessary, and it is assumed that “a single trial will be more expedient” than
separate trials.
Scarbro v. New Hanover Cty., No. 7:03-CV-244-FL, 2011 WL 2550969, at *2 (E.D.N.C. June 27,
2011) (citation omitted). The Court in its discretion denies defendants’ request to bifurcate the
issues for trial.
Defendants further request that special interrogatories be submitted to the jury to allow the
jury to decide the relevant factual issues. The Court agrees that the use of special interrogatories
will provide it with specific facts found by the jury upon which to base its determination of whether
all or any of the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Willingham v. Crooke,
412 F.3d 553, 560 (4th Cir. 2005) (“to the extent that a dispute of material fact precludes a
conclusive ruling on qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, the district court should
submit factual questions to the jury and reserve for itself the legal question of whether the
defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on the facts found by the jury.”). The Court will not,
however, provide the jury with, as defendants suggest, approximately seventy interrogatories to
answer.
Plaintiffs and defendants are DIRECTED to each provide to the Court a total of five (5)
separate special interrogatories they believe will allow the jury to make sufficient factual findings
on which the Court may base its qualified immunity ruling. As there are two plaintiffs and four
remaining defendants in this action, the parties are permitted to request a response from the jury
within each interrogatory as to the necessary party or parties. Finally, the Court recognizes that the
evidence which is ultimately admitted at trial may result in a request to modify a party’s proposed
interrogatories. Tae Court will permit the parties an opportunity to do so prior to the cherge:
conference.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to join [DE 367] is GRANTED and the motion for
bifurcation and special interrogatories [DE 364] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The parties shall submit proposed special interrogatories in accordance with the foregoing not later
than May 7, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. for the Court’s review.
SO ORDERED, this 3 day of May, 2021.
dé W. BOYLE i
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE