Gilliam v. Allen

In suit for false arrest, deprivation of due process, and malicious prosecution, by exonerees, it was not error to admit in evidence Governor’s pardons based on innocence and to prohibit defendants from impeaching the pardons, where court made clear pardons were not red judicata and did not prohibit defendants from challenging fact of innocence; error to allow former district attorney, based on his knowledge of routine interrogation practices, that he did not find the defendants’ descriptions of interrogations of plaintiffs as calm and uncoercive, testimony constituted objectionable opinion evidence and witness was not proffered as an expert, but error was not harmful where plaintiffs testified their interrogations were coercive.