829 F.3d 869
7th Cir.2016Background
- Police obtained a high-risk search warrant for a suspected drug dealer at an apartment; SWAT planned a ~30-second dynamic entry and authorized use of flashbangs.
- SWAT breached the door and Officer Colbenson cleared windows; he briefly saw someone (Flournoy) inside but testified he only saw her for about a second and did not know her identity.
- Officer Quinn visually scanned the entryway, tossed a flashbang into the apartment entry; it detonated and severely injured Flournoy’s leg.
- Search recovered narcotics and a loaded handgun; Flournoy sued Officers Quinn and Colbenson under § 1983 for excessive force and failure to intervene.
- At trial jury returned verdict for defendants; a handwritten notation on one police-report copy stating “two flashbangs deployed” was excluded as hearsay; jury submitted a signed note explaining they found departmental errors but not liability for the two officers.
- District court denied Flournoy’s motion for a new trial; Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether verdict was against manifest weight (excessive force) | No rational jury could find force reasonable given severe injury from flashbang | Officers acted reasonably under totality — high-risk entry, training, brief visual check before deployment | Affirmed: Verdict supported; reasonable-basis standard met; no abuse of discretion denying new trial |
| Admissibility of handwritten notation “two flashbangs deployed” | Note was critical evidence; admissible under business-records or residual hearsay exceptions | Notation is hearsay with unknown author/time; conflicts with typed report and testimony; unreliable | Affirmed: Exclusion not an abuse of discretion; not admissible under Rule 803(6) or Rule 807 |
| Effect of jury’s explanatory note on verdict validity | Note shows juror confusion, nullification, or disregard for instructions; requires new trial | Note is a nonresponsive, surplusage observation consistent with applying law to particular defendants | Affirmed: Note immaterial/surplusage and does not impeach verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Whiteagle, 759 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion review for new-trial denial)
- Galvan v. Norberg, 678 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2012) (deferential standard for reviewing jury verdicts)
- King v. Harrington, 447 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2006) (manifest-weight/no-rational-jury standard)
- Fitzgerald v. Santoro, 707 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2013) (Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (objective-reasonableness and split-second judgments)
- United States v. Hawkins, 803 F.3d 900 (7th Cir. 2015) (hearsay/admissibility principles)
- Estate of Escobedo v. Martin, 702 F.3d 388 (7th Cir. 2012) (flashbang deployment and officer safety)
- Great Pines Water Co. v. Liqui-Box Corp., 203 F.3d 920 (5th Cir. 2000) (additional jury notations treated as surplusage)
- Freeman v. Franzen, 695 F.2d 485 (7th Cir. 1982) (jury recommendations/notes ordinarily disregarded)