The District Court’s Handling of the Fetzer Criminal Verdict Correctional Officer Fetzer was one of the officers that Bounds named as having used excessive force during the riot suppression that was the root of the First Amendment retaliation claim. Officer Fetzer faced criminal charges in United States v. Fetzer, Cr. A No. 99-41 (D.Del.), but was later acquitted. Appellants sought to use his acquittal in the criminal proceedings to rebut the testimony against Fetzer in the instant civil appeal. We have held that evidence of an acquittal from a criminal proceeding is inadmissible in a civil proceeding unless used in “limited occasions when otherwise inadmissible testimony may be admitted as rebuttal.” Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Sunshine Supermarket, Inc., 753 F.2d 321, 325 (3d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). It has been explained elsewhere: The
holding grooming evidence inadmissible under r 403 under the facts of the case but not foreclosing admissibility in every case and not addressing r 702 holding evidence of an acquittal in a criminal arson case inadmissible in a civil arson case holding that there is a qualified first amendment right of access to proceedings and documents relating to disqualification of a judge in a criminal case and to conflicts of interest between attorneys in a criminal case holding that an order disqualifying counsel in a civil case is not a final judgment holding that final judgment in a criminal case means sentence