Thomas MORAN, Appellant, v. Anne-Marie CLARKE; Robert Haar; Wayman F. Smith, III; Jeffery Jamison; Clarence Harmon, comprising the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis; Ronald Henderson; Paul M. Nocchiero; Gregory Hawkins: Al Klein; Willie Thirdkill; Jack Huelsmann; William Kusmec; William Swiderski; Richard Booker, Jr.; Terrence DuPree; Barry Greene; Steven Petty; Harvey Laux, Appellees, 296 F.3d 638

BEAM, Circuit Judge. Thomas Moran, a St. Louis police officer, sued the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners (“the Board” or “Board”) along with various police officials and officers, alleging malicious prosecution and violation of his substantive due process rights. After the plaintiff presented his case to a jury, the defendants made a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which motion the trial court granted. Moran now appeals the district court’s adverse judgment, along with various eviden-tiary and discovery rulings and the district court’s denial of his motion for recusal.

This matter was previously heard and decided by a three-judge panel, Moran v. Clarke, 247 F.3d 799 (8th Cir.), vacated and reh’g granted by 258 F.3d 904 (8th Cir.2001), and now comes before the court sitting en banc. Once again, we find the district court erred in awarding judgment as a matter of law. We reverse and remand for a new trial, and for reconsideration of certain of the evidentiary, discovery and recusal rulings. 1. BACKGROUND This action represents the end product of a series of tragic events.

Given the district court’s disposition of this case, we state the facts in a light most favorable to Moran, assume the truth of his evidence, and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. Otting v. J.C. Penney Co., 223 F.3d 704, 708 (8th Cir.2000). On April 14, 1997, St. Louis police officers Richard Booker and Steven Petty responded to a report of a burglar alarm at a private residence. Inside the apartment, the officers encountered Gregory Bell, a mentally-impaired teenager. Bell’s impairment prevented him from providing the proper alarm code or explaining to the officers that he lived there.

Thinking him a burglar, the officers attempted to place Bell under arrest. Bell resisted. During the ensuing fight, the officers repeatedly struck him with metal batons and sprayed him with mace. During the struggle, one of the officers placed an “officer in need of aid” call. At that time, Sergeant Moran was on duty at a police substation. With him were emergency medical technicians Mark Rauss and Larry Campbell. When the “officer in need of aid” call came in, Moran immediately headed to the scene. Anticipating their own call, Rauss and Campbell also responded.

When Moran reached the scene, ten to thirteen police cars already blocked the street. Moran had to park far down the street and walk back to the residence. Meanwhile, some combination of responding officers eventually subdued Bell. After he ceased resisting, Bell was brought from the house in handcuffs. Dispatcher and 911 tape recordings indicate that Moran did not arrive at the house until after Bell had been subdued. After Moran arrived on the scene, he entered the house and encountered Bell as he was being removed from the premises.

Rauss and Campbell treated Bell from the moment he was brought outside until the time he was transported from the scene. According to Rauss, Moran did not use mace on Bell during that period. The incident left Bell with severe lacerations to the head and a broken ankle. There is substantial evidence that throughout this course of events, Moran neither struck nor used mace upon Gregory Bell. Within seventy-two hours of the incident, Police Chief Ronald Henderson publicly acknowledged that a mistake had been made and committed himself to punishing wrongdoers.

On April 19th, the Saturday following the beating, Major Hawkins, the Inspector of Police, received an anonymous phone call informing him that Officer Barry Greene had been at the scene and wanted to make a statement. Ordinarily, internal investigations within the St. Louis Police Department are handled by the Internal Affairs Division (“IAD”) and Chiefs of Police are rarely involved.

In this case, however, Major Hawkins, Chief Henderson and Captain Nocchiero, the IAD director, met with Officer Greene that evening in Henderson’s office, while the assigned IAD investigators, Sergeants Thirdkill and Klein, were never notified. Officer Greene gave a taped statement accusing Sergeant Moran of striking Bell. None of the participants asked Greene a single question. The record indicates that Greene gave two statements, the first of which did not implicate Moran, and which was not recorded.

Shortly after hearing Officer Greene’s Saturday night statement, and while IAD was still interviewing officers, Chief Henderson took Officer Greene, Major Hawkins, Captain Nocchiero and Sergeants Thirdkill and Klein to speak with Dee Joyce-Hayes, Circuit Attorney for the City of St. Louis, to report Moran’s alleged wrongdoing. Henderson did this despite the fact that at that time no statement of any other officer at the scene had implicated Moran. In the wake of the beating, IAD had begun interviewing individuals involved, and ultimately interviewed approximately fifteen officers.

Among those interviewed were Officers Petty and Booker, both of whom waived their Miranda rights and gave statements. At trial, Moran established that St. Louis officers in such a situation, facing potential criminal charges of their own, usually do not waive their rights. Booker testified that “[i]f I waive my rights, I feel basically I’m not being pursued criminally.” After the first round of interviews, no other officer had corroborated Officer Greene’s allegation. IAD then began calling officers back for repeated rounds of additional interviews.

In these interrogations, IAD told the officers they were looking for “the truth.” Curious about IAD’s conduct, Richard Barry and Andrew Leonard, the attorneys representing the various officers, including Moran, inquired of Captain Nocchiero what IAD thought was “the truth.” Nocchiero said that he could not answer the question, and then walked out of his office. He returned shortly, and ushered the two attorneys into Chief Henderson’s office. Concerned with potential conflicts of interest, Barry asked Chief Henderson who he wanted.

Chief Henderson stated, “I want the sergeant.” Barry then asked, “which sergeant?” According to Barry, Henderson replied “the white sergeant.” Barry and Leonard were certain that Henderson was focusing on Moran. Leonard was convinced that Chief Henderson was driving the internal investigation. Henderson made clear to the attorneys that officers changing their statements would not lose their jobs based on any inconsistencies with their first statements. Among those interviewed was Officer Terrence DuPree.

DuPree had been present at the Bell beating, and had afterwards corroborated Booker’s report on the incident, purportedly encouraged to do so by Moran. When recalled for subsequent interviews, DuPree was working the “overlay” shift, which runs from 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Almost every morning for a week, after finishing his shift, he was required to report to IAD, where he was left to sit without being interviewed by anyone, at times while his attorney spoke with Chief Henderson and IAD officers.

Having seen Chief Henderson’s statement to the media — which occurred prior to completing the investigation — Officer DuPree knew that the Department had committed itself to punishing a wrongdoer. In this regard, DuPree, who testified he had been at the scene, expressed concern to his wife regarding Chief Henderson’s vow to punish wrongdoers. He further testified that this caused him personal concern. He also got the strong impression through the “rumor mill” that the Department was after Moran. DuPree again spoke with IAD on May 8, 1997.

At trial, DuPree testified that on that date he enhanced his initial statement for fear of losing his job. In that May 8 statement, DuPree implicated Moran in striking Bell with his ASP baton, but also stated that Moran had not acted with improper or excessive force. After receiving Officer DuPree’s May 8th statement, Chief Henderson suspended Moran without pay. Moran was ultimately formally accused of having assaulted Bell by striking him with an ASP baton and by spraying mace in his face, both after Bell had ceased resisting.

On May 16, 1997, the Metropolitan Police Department Bureau of Professional Standards charged Moran with assault, use of excessive force with an ASP baton, and use of excessive force with mace. Chief Henderson and Major Hawkins signed off on these administrative charges. On June 5, 1997, Moran was indicted by a grand jury on criminal charges of felony assault, misdemeanor assault and' conspiracy to hinder prosecution. Moran was allowed to voluntarily surrender himself to the police department and was arrested. After booking, he was released.

The charges against Moran were assigned to Assistant Circuit Attorney Douglas Pribble. After reviewing the evidence, Pribble. wrote a memorandum to Circuit Attorney Joyce-Hayes which detailed the inconsistencies between the various officers’ statements, thoroughly discredited Greene’s statements, and demonstrated how the evidence not only failed to build a case against Moran, but in fact tended to exonerate him. The prosecution proceeded, and Pribble subsequently left the circuit attorney’s office. In May of 1998, a jury acquitted Moran of all criminal charges. On May 22, 1998, the St.

Louis Post-Dispatch reported that the Police Department had reached a $250,000 settlement with the Bell family. The paper reported it believed this to be the largest settlement ever paid by the Department. On May 18, 1998, one year after the Bureau of Professional Standards had first filed its administrative charges against Moran, and two weeks before his administrative hearing, a fourth charge of failure to properly exercise his duties as a police sergeant was added against him. This additional charge was also authorized by Major Hawkins and Chief Henderson.

Moran’s administrative hearing occurred on June 4 and 5, 1998, and July 14, 15, 16, 28, 29 and 31, 1998. At this hearing, several witnesses favorable to Moran who had testified for him at his criminal trial asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege and declined to testify. They did so because shortly before the hearing began they had been informed that they were the targets of additional internal procedures. The hearing officer ultimately recommended acquittal on the assault and excessive force charges.

However, he recommended sustaining the fourth charge on the grounds that Moran directed Booker to file a false report regarding the Bell beating. The Board of Police Commissioners accepted the first three recommendations. The Board also accepted the fourth recommendation but sustained the charge on wholly different grounds. The Board concluded that while it could not tell who beat Gregory Bell, or when or how, it was certain that some beating occurred after Bell had been subdued. The Board further concluded that Moran had been in charge at that time.

The Board therefore found Moran guilty of failure to properly exercise his duties by failing to prevent the purported illegal beating. As punishment, the Board enforced the earlier suspension without pay and demoted Moran. As provided under Missouri law, Moran appealed this process to the Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis which affirmed the Police Board’s action. In late 1998 and early 1999, the Department meted out suspensions of one to five days to various officers for conduct related to the Bell incident, including failure to report misconduct, false reporting, and improper performance of duty.

No officer, however, was ever punished for assaulting Bell. Moran sued the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they conspired to and did violate his right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. He also alleged a state law malicious prosecution claim. This litigation does not revisit his acquittal of criminal wrongdoing. Rather, it questions the defendants’ investigation into Moran’s conduct, and the ensuing criminal and administrative procedures and prosecutions. Prior to trial, Moran was denied numerous items of discovery under assertions of privilege.

Both prior to and at trial, the district court excluded various items of evidence Moran sought to or did offer. After presentation of Moran’s case, as earlier indicated, the district court granted defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law. Moran now appeals these rulings. He also appeals the district court judge’s refusal to recuse himself after Moran discovered that the district court judge had a close social relationship with one of the named defendants. II. DISCUSSION A. Substantive Due Process We start with the district court’s disposition of this case.

A district court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law once a party has been fully heard on an issue if the party has failed to establish any legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the party on that issue. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1). Sucha ruling is appropriate only “when all the evidence points one way and is susceptible of no reasonable inferences sustaining the position of the non-moving party.” Ehrhardt v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 21 F.3d 266, 269 (8th Cir.1994) (quotation omitted). We review a grant of a judgment as a matter of law de novo. Heintzelman v.

Runyon, 120 F.3d 143, 145 (8th Cir.1997). In doing so we do not weigh the evidence, but draw all factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc., 494 U.S. 545, 554, 110 S.Ct. 1331, 108 L.Ed.2d 504 (1990). Moran alleged that the defendants conspired to and did violate his federally secured rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees “[substantive due process[, which] prevents the government from engaging in conduct that shocks the conscience or interferes with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Weiler v.

Purkett, 137 F.3d 1047, 1051 (8th Cir.1998) (en banc). To that end, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits “conduct that is so outrageous that it shocks the conscience or otherwise offends ‘judicial notions of fairness, [or is] offensive to human dignity.’ ” Id. (quoting Weimer v. Amen, 870 F.2d 1400, 1405 (8th Cir.1989)) (alteration in original). Moran also alleged a malicious prosecution claim, which arises under Missouri law upon a showing that a defendant initiated or continued a prosecution without probable cause. King v. Ryals, 981 S.W.2d 151, 154 (Mo.Ct.App.1998).

The district court acted correctly only if the evidence Moran introduced, viewed in a light most favorable to him, failed to create any legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for him on any of his claims. See Lytle, 494 U.S. at 554-55, 110 S.Ct. 1331. After a thorough review of the record, we find the district court erred. “In determining whether a substantive right protected by the Due Process Clause has been violated, it is necessary to balance ‘the liberty of the individual’ ‘and the demands of an organized society.’ ” Youngberg v.

Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 320, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982) (citations omitted). Whether a substantive due process right exists is a question of law. See id. at 321, 102 S.Ct. 2452 (stating that “[i]f there is to be any uniformity in protecting [individuals’ liberty interests and relevant state interests], ... balancing [of the plaintiffs liberty interests against the relevant state interests] cannot be left to the unguided discretion of a judge or jury”).

However, subject to certain presumptions, whether the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to support a claimed violation of a substantive due process right is a question for the fact-finder, here the jury. Cf. id. at 324-25, 102 S.Ct. 2452. We concede that some of our previous cases may not have discussed with sufficient clarity the consideration to be given the various elements of a substantive claim. Fortunately, we are also guided by more recent Supreme Court precedent as we decide this dispute. The facets of our endeavor do not occur in isolation.

As we have recognized, to decide this appeal, we must weigh “the individual’s interest in liberty against the State’s asserted reasons for restraining individual liberty.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 320, 102 S.Ct. 2452. At the outset, we identify the individual liberty interests at stake and the established demands of an organized society at issue. See id. at 321, 102 S.Ct. 2452; see also Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (plurality opinion of Rehnquist, C.J.).

We then analyze, qualitatively, whether the interests asserted are sufficiently important for substantive due process consideration. Ultimately, within this context, we assess whether the government’s contested actions are conscience shocking. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 849, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (plurality opinion of Souter, J.). The Supreme Court has “always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process.” Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992).

The Court also “exercise[s] the utmost care whenever ... asked to break new ground in this field.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997) (quotations omitted). Still, the Supreme Court has, nonetheless, as noted by Judge Richard Sheppard Arnold in his well reasoned dissent in Singleton v. Cecil, 176 F.3d 419, 431-32 (8th Cir.1999), occasionally recognized a new liberty interest or expanded, at least marginally, an existing right.

Although some precedent at least implies that even minor interests may be actionable if government conduct is sufficiently arbitrary and outrageous, see, e.g., City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 53, 119 S.Ct. 1849, 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (stating that “the freedom to loiter for innocent purposes is part of the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”); BMW of North America, Inc. v.

Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 599, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (indicating that the majority had identified “a ‘substantive due process’ right against a ‘grossly excessive’ award”), we need not answer that question today. Here, we deal with fundamental rights and interests specifically identified by the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, speaking in Glucksberg, states that “[t]he Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the ‘liberty’ it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint.” 521 U.S. at 719 (citing Collins, 503 U.S. at 125, 112 S.Ct. 1061). “The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.” Id. at 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258 (emphasis added).

The Chief Justice notes that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the “liberty” specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes certain court-recognized fundamental rights. Judge Arnold points out in Singleton, that the Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923), acknowledged a fundamental interest inherent in the right to engage in any of the common occupations of life. 176 F.3d at 431. He then notes Cafeteria and Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v.

McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961), in this regard, wherein the plaintiff, a short-order cook, “was not deprived of anything beyond that particular job, but all nine members of the [Supreme] Court were nevertheless agreed that she was protected, in the substantive sense, from conduct that was patently arbitrary.” Singleton, 176 F.3d at 432. Moran offers evidence that he was investigated, prosecuted, suspended without pay, demoted and stigmatized by falsely-created evidence and other defamatory actions of the defendants.

The Supreme Court has held that an individual has a right in the course of employment to be free from an employer’s stigmatizing conduct, at least without an opportunity for a name-clearing response, Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), and, also, as just noted, to engage, without unreasonable interference and harassment, in any of the common occupations of life, Meyer, 262 U.S. at 399, 43 S.Ct. 625. We believe this includes police work—indeed, perhaps, specific police work. See, e.g., McElroy, 367 U.S. at 896, 81 S.Ct. 1743; see also Winegar v.

Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 20 F.3d 895, 900 (8th Cir.) (indicating that an employee can have a protected interest in a benefit, such as a particular assignment or duty station, if he legitimately expects to continue in that assignment), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 964, 115 S.Ct. 426, 130 L.Ed.2d 340 (1994). Perhaps more importantly, according to the evidence, the adverse employment actions may have been undertaken by the defendants, at least in part, because Moran is white. Equal protection is, of course, one of the fundamental freedoms specifically protected by the Bill of Rights. U.S. Const. amend.

XIV, § 1. Singling out an individual for investigation or punishment because of race is suspect. See, e.g., Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 305, 307, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978) (stating that “[w]hen a classification denies an individual opportunities or benefits ... because of his race ... it must be regarded as suspect,” and that “[preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race ... is discrimination for its own sake”).

In order to justify use of a suspect classification, such as race, the government must show that its purpose is both constitutionally permissible and that use of the classification is necessary to safeguard its interest. Id. at 305, 98 S.Ct. 2733. The record on appeal does not clearly set forth the race of the various parties and participants, including the police officers who were more clearly involved in the striking of Mr. Bell but who were penalized, at most, by the imposition of one— to five-day suspensions.

However, these details may have been obvious to the jury as the various parties and witnesses appeared at trial. . This information, if available to the fact-finder, may prove to be relevant in the balancing of individual interests against the demands of organized society. Although Glucksberg involved legislative action, we are also guided by Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Lewis —a concurrence apparently necessary for a court majority on the plurality’s holdings on actionable interests.

There, Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice O’Connor, dealt with executive action and noted that an “interest protected by the text of the Constitution” is sufficient to support substantive due process analysis. Lewis, 523 U.S. at 856, 118 S.Ct. 1708 (plurality opinion of Kennedy, J.). We are, therefore, comfortable in holding that the interests asserted by Moran are sufficient to support substantive inquiry.

However, before proceeding further, we must also consider the principle that if “ ‘a particular Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of substantive due process, must be the guide for analyzing these claims.’ ” Lewis, 523 U.S. at 842, 118 S.Ct. 1708 (plurality opinion of Souter, J.) (quoting Albright, 510 U.S. at 273, 114 S.Ct. 807 (plurality opinion of Rehnquist, C.J.)).

In Albright, a plurality of the Court determined there was no substantive due process right arising from malicious prosecution, but did not rule out the possibility of bringing such claims under the auspices of the Fourth Amendment. 510 U.S. at 271, 274-75, 114 S.Ct. 807.

However, in Leivis, a plurality pointed out that: [Not] all constitutional claims relating to physically abusive government conduct must arise under either the Fourth or Eighth Amendments; rather, [relevant precedent] simply requires that if a constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional provision, such as. the Fourth or Eighth Amendment, the claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not under the rubric of substantive due process. 523 U.S. at 843, 118 S.Ct. 1708 (quotations and citation omitted).

Accordingly, when a person is damaged by outrageous police misconduct but the resulting injury does not neatly fit within a specific constitutional remedy, the injured party may, depending upon the circumstances, pursue a substantive due process claim under

section 1983. See id. at 844, 118 S.Ct. 1708 (citing, e.g., Evans v. Avery, 100 F.3d 1033, 1036 (1st Cir.1996); Pleasant v. Zamieski, 895 F.2d 272, 276 n. 2 (6th Cir.1990)). In Albright, an informant of questionable reliability misidentified John Albright, Jr., as a seller of cocaine. Albright v. Oliver, 975 F.2d 343, 344-45 (7th Cir.1992). After the defendant detective realized that Albright was not likely to have committed the offense of which he was accused, the detective pm-sued Albright’s sons. Id. at 344.

The detective discovered that one son, John David Albright, could not have committed the offense because he was in another state at the time the informant said the crime transpired. Id. He then pursued a second son, plaintiff Kevin Al-bright. Id. The detective made no effort to corroborate the unsubstantiated accusation of the informant, despite the informant’s initial misidentification having cast grave doubt on the accuracy of her information, and despite the fact that of fifty individuals she had accused of trafficking drugs, none had been successfully prosecuted. Id. at 345.

Kevin Albright was charged and a warrant was issued for his arrest but he learned of the warrant and turned himself in to law enforcement authorities. Id. at 344. Although the Seventh Circuit acknowledged that arresting a person on such “scanty grounds ... is shocking,” id. at 345, the Supreme Court determined that such pretrial deprivations were better addressed under the Fourth Amendment and not substantive due process, 510 U.S. at 274-75, 114 S.Ct. 807.

Unlike the facts of Albright, Moran, in his due process claim, offers evidence of a purposeful police conspiracy to manufacture, and the manufacture of, false evidence. Instead of simply allowing a weakly supported prosecution to proceed, Moran correctly asserts that the evidence can be read to show acts designed to falsely formulate a pretense of probable cause. Although the Fourth Amendment covers seizures, which would be satisfied by Moran’s arrest, law enforcement’s intentional creation of damaging facts would not fall within its ambit. Cf. Albright, 510 U.S. at 274-75, 114 S.Ct. 807; Rogers v.

City of Little Rock, 152 F.3d 790, 796 (8th Cir.1998) (stating that the violation there was “different in nature from one that [could] be analyzed under the fourth amendment reasonableness standard” because “[n]o degree of sexual assault by a police officer acting under color of law could ever be proper”). Here, we see no specifically applicable constitutional remedy that provides Moran with explicit protection to a level sufficient to exclude substantive due process analysis. Finally, we must consider the universe of executive abuses that shock the conscience and violate the decencies of a civilized society.

See Lewis, 523 U.S. at 846-47, 118 S.Ct. 1708. Although acts arising out of a defendant’s deliberate indifference will not sustain a substantive due process claim, “conduct intended to injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest is the sort of official action most likely to rise to the conscience-shocking level.” Id. at 849, 118 S.Ct. 1708. In striking the substantive due process balance, the question “is not simply whether a liberty interest has been infringed but whether the extent or nature of the [infringement] ... is such as to violate due process.” It is a question of degree.

In general, substantive due process “is concerned with violations of personal rights ... so severe ... so disproportionate to the need presented, and ... so inspired by malice or sadism rather than a merely careless or unwise excess of zeal that it amounted to a brutal and inhumane abuse of official power literally shocking to the conscience.” In re Scott County Master Docket, 672 F.Supp. 1152, 1166 (D.Minn.1987) (alterations in original) (citations omitted).

At first glance, it might appear that the demands of an organized society in this case would list toward the serious business of weeding out police abuses like those of which Moran was accused. Thwarting and punishing police brutality certainly weighs heavily and lies at the heart of our system of justice, if it is indeed to be one of meting out justice. However, here the substantive due process claim alleges actions not based on so pure a motive.

Accordingly, we are prompted to weigh Moran’s constitutionally important liberty interests against evidence that officials purposely conspired to manufacture evidence in order to make him an innocent scapegoat for a devastating travesty that embarrassed the police department and its managers, and evidence that the executive actions may have been partially undertaken to protect other, more favored, employees in the department. Viewing the record in the appropriate light, Moran established a plausible case for each of his contentions.

He introduced evidence that tends to show a police department that publicly and financially committed itself to producing a culprit for an alleged wrongdoing before any such wrongdoing was actually established. He produced proof of questionable procedures, of pressures placed on officers to incriminate a specific person or corroborate the department’s official line, of a hasty condemnation of Moran and of improper consideration of his race. Moreover, he offered proof that, at various times, certain defendants purposely ignored evidence that strongly tended to exonerate him.

In short, drawing all inferences in his favor, a reasonable jury could conclude that some or all of the defendants intentionally set up an innocent Moran for patently arbitrary reasons. On the other hand, it may well be that learning of a brutal beating, Chief Henderson drew a reasonable conclusion that wrongdoing had occurred, and that under the circumstances, given Barry Greene’s statement, and facing a “blue wall of silence,” the Chief and LAD acted reasonably.

A jury might also conclude that treatment of DuPree was reasonable under the circumstances, that he was not pressured to implicate Moran, and that his concern was self-imposed. It may also be that many of the operative decisions lay not in the hands of the defendants but with the prosecuting attorney. Such questions, however, along with whether a hint of probable cause existed, depend on

interpretation of the evidence, the drawing of inferences and evaluation of witness credibility. These remain the province of the jury. Accordingly, we remand for a new trial. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 325, 102 S.Ct. 2452. B. Recusal We turn next to the recusal question. At her deposition, Board member Anne-Marie Clarke disclosed that she and the district court judge know each other socially. She admitted having known the judge for over twenty-one years. She testified that over the years they had visited one another’s homes on various occasions.

Clarke also testified that she, the district judge, and her co-defendant Wayman Smith appeared at the same social events. Given these discoveries, Moran made a motion for recusal, which the district court denied without comment. Moran appeals this decision. We commit the recusal decision to the sound discretion of the district court, and review that decision only for abuse of discretion. In re Kansas Pub. Employees Retirement Sys., 85 F.3d 1353, 1358 (8th Cir.1996) [hereinafter In re KPERS ].

A judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). This restriction is intended to “promote public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 859-60, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988). Whether a judge actually has a bias, or actually knows of grounds requiring recusal is irrelevant —

section 455(

a) sets an objective standard that does not require scienter. Id. at 859-60, 108 S.Ct. 2194. We have recast the issue as “whether the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned by the average person on the street who knows all the relevant facts of a case.” In re KPERS, 85 F.3d at 1358. By enacting

section 455(a), Congress sought to eradicate not only actual, but also the appearance of impropriety in the federal judiciary. See Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 860, 108 S.Ct. 2194. To that end, Congress permitted parties to waive such ground for disqualification after full disclosure on the record. 28 U.S.C. § 455(e). Thus, where judges have fully disclosed potential conflicts and have then retained their mandate in a case, we have been solicitous of their discretion.

In In re KPERS, for instance, the district court immediately informed the parties when a potential conflict arose, and disqualified himself from a decision involving those parties. 85 F.3d at 1355. Moreover, knowing of potential conflicts, the parties passed up opportunities to object. Id. at 1356. There, we affirmed the district court judge’s refusal to recuse himself. Id. at 1358. It is true that “[a]n unfavorable judicial ruling ... does not raise an inference of bias or require the trial judge’s recusal.” Harris v.

Missouri, 960 F.2d 738, 740 (8th Cir.1992) (declining to accept judge’s refusal to accept a plea agreement as evidence of bias); accord Holloway v. United States, 960 F.2d 1348, 1350-51 (8th Cir.1992) (holding that granting a reduced sentence to one but not another defendant, and being friends with another judge who allegedly “harbored a bias” against defendant, were not grounds for finding bias).

However, the inquiry whether a reasonable person, knowing all the relevant facts, would discern potential impropriety certainly warrants consideration of a judge’s course or pattern of rulings, and also of the judge’s course of conduct. We are troubled by the record in this case. The district judge’s appearances at the same social events as Clarke and Smith brooks little mention. Judges, attorneys and public officials will often share public appearances. This does little to create the appearance of impropriety. The social relationship, however, invites more scrutiny.

The image of one sitting in judgment over a friend’s affairs would likely cause the average person in the street to pause. That the judge and Clarke enjoyed a friendship of sufficient depth and duration as to warrant several reciprocal visits to one another’s homes only exacerbates the problem. We find particularly worrisome the district court’s failure to disclose this conflict himself, as permitted by

section 455(e). Moreover, the record suggests a fractious relationship between the district court and Moran’s attorneys. We do, however, have the utmost faith in the district court’s ability to rule impartially, and have imposed on ourselves an obligation to reverse a district court only where we can say with certainty that it has abused its discretion. Accordingly, rather than remand to a different judge, we remand this question to the district court with the suggestion that it revisit and more thoroughly consider and respond to Moran’s recusal request. C.

Evidentiary Rulings Moran next appeals various evidentiary rulings. We review a district court’s evi-dentiary decisions for abuse of discretion. Radecki v. Joura, 177 F.3d 694, 696 (8th Cir.1999). In order to warrant that review, however, a party must properly preserve an issue below with an offer of proof unless the evidence was excluded pursuant to a motion in limine. Fed.R.Evid. 103(a). Additionally, an issue must be presented here in a meaningfully developed manner. Bratton v. Roadway Package Sys., Inc., 77 F.3d 168, 173 n. 1 (7th Cir.1996).

Moran appeals different 'exclusions with varying degrees of specificity. Were it not for our disposition of the first issue above, we would not likely reach many of his more elliptical arguments. However, our remand for a new trial wipes the evidentia-ry slate clean and permits Moran to rear-gue the admissibility of each item to the district court. We therefore decline to take up each ruling separately. We do note, though, for clarity on remand, that were we to reach Moran’s arguments we would likely find error with at least some of the district court’s rulings.

The district court first excluded significant amounts of evidence on the basis that it ran to the issue of whether Moran was actually innocent. We agree that evidence probative solely for that purpose would be irrelevant to the questions of whether probable cause existed for a prosecution and whether the defendants’ conduct was sufficiently shocking.

However, some of the evidence the district court excluded, for instance whether Chief Henderson was ever aware of the analysis of the 911 dispatcher tape recordings, seems probative both to prove Moran’s innocence and also to establish the very questions at issue in this case. Such evidence should have been received. The district court also excluded evidence on the grounds that it related solely to the administrative charges brought against Moran and appealed by him to the Missouri state courts.

The district court ruled that evidence relating to those charges should be excluded because those claims were subject to a res judicata defense. As we are remanding for a new trial, the district court will also have an opportunity to revisit these rulings. We pause only to note that whether a claim is precluded in a particular instance does not dispose of the question of-whether evidence relating to that claim is relevant or irrelevant to another more current dispute. D.

Discovery Rulings Moran also appeals the district court’s refusal to order defendants to produce two types of documents — IAD investigative reports and the minutes of closed Board meetings. To protect the former, the defendants assert governmental and work product privileges. As to the latter, they assert the attorney-client privilege. Moran asserts the district court erred in sustaining these claims of privilege, or should at least have undertaken an in camera review of the purportedly privileged documents. We review a district court’s discovery rulings for abuse of discretion. Bunting v.

Sea Ray, Inc., 99 F.3d 887, 890 (8th Cir.1996). We will grant a new trial on the basis of erroneous discovery errors only where the errors “amount to a gross abuse of discretion resulting in fundamental unfairness.” Id. Our review is thus both narrow and deferential. Id. We similarly rely heavily on the district court’s discretion in deciding whether to conduct an in camera review. United States v. Phillips, 854 F.2d 273, 277 (7th Cir.1988). Having reviewed the record, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion to such a degree as to warrant a new trial.

However, we have already determined that this matter should be remanded for a new trial on other grounds. As with the evidentiary rulings discussed above, the district court will be able to revisit these rulings upon Moran’s motion. On appeal, however, Moran has not stated a case sufficiently compelling to persuade us that the district court committed error in not conducting an in camera review. III. CONCLUSION This matter is reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. .

Although the trial court excluded this memorandum from evidence, its contents were broadly discussed at trial. . The district court entertained only the briefest of oral arguments on the defendants’ motion before granting it. The district court apparently wrapped the malicious prosecution claim and the

section 1983 claim together, hearing argument only as to the former, yet applying the same standard to both. In a one-page order, the district court, without explanation, dismissed all of Moran’s claims. As a matter of procedure, the district court should have articulated grounds for this decision. See Dominium Mgmt. Servs. Inc. v. Nationwide Housing Group, 195 F.3d 358, 366 (8th Cir.1999). . By way of illustration, he listed the right to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967); to have children, Skinner v.

Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942); to direct the upbringing and education of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965); to use contraception, id.; to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952); to abortion, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992); and, perhaps, the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, Cruzan v.

Director, Missouri Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990). Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258. . We have analyzed in detail only the federal constitutional issue. This was done for two reasons. The state malicious prosecution claim was considered by the district court almost entirely in the context of the federal due process claim. See ante n. 4. Without continuing jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 1332, the district court had broad discretion to terminate the state claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

The district court did not reach the defendants’ qualified immunity defense. Upon remand, we direct the district court to further evaluate all claims and defenses consistent with this opinion.