Evidence of plaintiff's prior convictions properly excluded in S1983 claim, as a "mere presence" defense does not open the door for an examination of the plaintiff's truthfulness in a S1983 suit; the question being tried is the conduct of the officer. Additionally, not probative of plaintiff's truthfulness.
Admission of prosecutor's testimony about deft's guilty pleas, if error, not prejudicial. Physician expert had appropriate foundation. Sufficient evidence for conspiracy, given pre-existing working relationship; sufficient evidence for state tort claims.
Conspiracy instruction did not lower the threshold; court did not err in adding a definition of "instigate" to the standard instruction; damages can be prospective under state law.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/171309P.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.