Barber v. Malaniuk
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83099
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- Plaintiff Terrence Barber alleged false arrest and excessive force by Officers Shields and Malaniuk on December 14, 2005, causing injuries.
- Jury trial occurred November 14–17, 2011; the jury found for defendants; judgment entered; plaintiff moved for a new trial on December 16, 2011.
- Plaintiff challenged admission of evidence: his subsequent arrest, his felony conviction, and limitations on prior statements by defendants and by plaintiff.
- Court applied Rule 59 standard balancing credibility, materiality, and prejudice under 403 and RFRE 103(a).
- Court admitted limited evidence of underage drinking arrest to challenge plaintiff’s denial of drinking; and allowed supervening conviction evidence to support emotional distress damages; both limited by instructions.
- Court denied all grounds for a new trial, including basing rulings on trial management and bias claims, concluding no substantial rights were violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the subsequent arrest evidence | Arrest evidence is not probative of credibility. | Evidence is probative for truthfulness and properly limited by 403. | Denied; evidence admissible for truthfulness with limiting instruction. |
| Admission of the felony conviction for emotional distress | Conviction admission was unfairly prejudicial. | Highly probative on damages causation; limited scope. | Denied; admissible under 403 for emotional distress damages with limiting instruction. |
| Barr on Defendants’ prior inconsistent statements from CR | Should be admitted to impeach truthfulness. | Motion in limine barred extrinsic impeachment; probative value limited. | Denied; ruling proper under 403 and 608. |
| Barr on Plaintiff's OPS statements | OPS statements should be admitted for impeachment. | Ruling upheld; no substantial rights affected if excluded. | Denied; harmless error if any. |
| Alleged judicial bias | Court biased against plaintiff and counsel. | No bias; rulings were law-based and evenhanded. | Denied; no reversible bias demonstrated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farfaras v. Citizens Bank and Trust of Chicago, 433 F.3d 558 (7th Cir.2006) ((due process standard for evidentiary rulings; substantial rights))
- Mejia v. Cook County, Ill., 650 F.3d 631 (7th Cir.2011) ((weight of evidence; credibility assessments))
- Moore ex rel. Estate of Grady v. Tuelja, 546 F.3d 423 (7th Cir.2008) ((manifest weight of the evidence standard))
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984) ((modification of evidentiary rulings; motions in limine))
- United States v. Lightfoot, 224 F.3d 586 (7th Cir.2000) ((probative value vs prejudice under Rule 403))
- Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1948) ((arrests without conviction not always impeachment))
- EEOC v. Management Hospitality of Racine, Inc., 666 F.3d 422 (7th Cir.2012) ((Rule 103(a) substantial rights standard))