Clarett v. Roberts, 657 F.3d 664

Officers from Lynwood Police Department went to Clarett's home early morning to question her sons about a nearby burglary; confrontation ensued and Clarett was Tasered three times and arrested for obstruction and resisting arrest.
Charges against Clarett were later dropped; she sued four Lynwood officers and three Lansing officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and false arrest, plus state-law claims.
Jury rendered a verdict for the defendants on all counts; Clarett appealed challenging evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.
District court admitted two of Clarett's prior criminal convictions for impeachment; Clarett challenged expert testimony by a lay witness; Clarett sought exclusion of evidence about lack of warrants and consent.
Clarett argued instructional errors on excessive force and probable cause and sought limiting instructions regarding prior convictions; the Seventh Circuit affirmed anyway.
Clarett's own decision to introduce her convictions at trial triggered waiver of appellate review of their admissibility under Ohler v. United States.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clarett waived admissibility challenge for convictions introduced by her	Clarett argues Ohler does not apply in civil cases	Defendants rely on Ohler-like waiver due to plaintiff's own testimony	Waiver applies; convictions admissibility unreviewable on appeal
Whether lay witness Roberts could give expert Taser testimony	Roberts improperly offered expert testimony on device funcionamento	Testimony based on lay experience; not improper expert opinion	Harmless error; no reversible impact on verdict
Exclusion of evidence that officers lacked a warrant	Lack of warrant relevant to Fourth Amendment claims	Warrant issue irrelevant to elements; any error harmless as Clarett testified to lack of warrant	Not reversible error; harmless given trial context
Jury instructions on excessive force and probable cause; limiting instruction on prior convictions	Instructions were flawed and curbing instructions on prior convictions were necessary	Instructions properly framed; standard rules applied	No reversible error; instructions adequate; no weightier remedy warranted

Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (U.S. 2000) (civil waiver of admissibility when defendant introduces own convictions)
Kunz v. DeFelice, 538 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2008) (Rule 609(a)(2) not all convictions qualify as dishonesty crimes)
United States v. L.E. Myers Co., 562 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Young v. James Green Mgmt., Inc., 327 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2003) (collateral matter limits on extrinsic evidence to impeach witness)
Briggs v. Marshall, 93 F.3d 355 (7th Cir. 1996) (consideration of injury in excessive-force claims; nominal damages)