Whether this Court should adopt a more flexible standard of admissibility of evidence than what is required by Huddleston v. U.S., 485 U.S. 681 (1988) under Rules 403 and 404(b), regarding the determination of prejudice in civil police liability cases, which often involve Plaintiffs who are on probation, have criminal histories, warrants, or possess evidence of a crime that is unknown to the officer but helps explain their response to law enforcement officers performing their duties?

Did the Eleventh Circuit panel disregard the appropriate standards of review and the appropriate application of the harmless error rule, making themselves impregnable citadels of technicality in this case, resulting in a departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power?

Whether the Court should adopt a more flexible standard of admissibility of evidence than Huddleston v. U.S. under Rules 403 and 404(b) in civil police liability cases involving plaintiffs with criminal histories