Jimenez v. City of Chicago
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20438
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- At 15, Thaddeus Jimenez was convicted (twice) of a 1994 murder based largely on eyewitness identifications and spent 16 years in prison before being exonerated; his conviction was vacated in 2009 and he received a certificate of innocence.
- Detective Jerome Bogucki investigated the homicide; plaintiff alleged Bogucki used coercion and other investigative misconduct (tainted identifications, suggestion about a Duke jacket, withholding impeachment/exculpatory evidence) that led to false witness testimony.
- Jimenez sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Brady/due process and conspiracy) and brought a state malicious-prosecution claim; jury awarded $25 million in compensatory damages, and the district court denied defendants’ post-trial Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions.
- On appeal defendants challenged: (1) the district court’s Batson ruling during jury selection; (2) refusal to give a limiting jury instruction on the scope of Brady theories; (3) sufficiency of evidence because trial did not admit full criminal trial transcripts; and (4) admission of police-practices expert testimony (Gregg McCrary).
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed in all respects, holding any Batson error (if any) harmless because defendants failed to show a biased juror sat; upholding refusal to limit Brady theories because trial evidence—not the summary-judgment record—controls; rejecting defendants’ Rule 50 sufficiency argument as forfeited (and meritless); and finding no reversible error in admitting McCrary’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson challenge to peremptory strike of an African-American juror | Jimenez argued the strike was racially motivated and trial court correctly sustained Batson challenge | Defendants said court erred in sustaining Batson and should have allowed a replacement peremptory strike | Affirmed; any error harmless under Martinez-Salazar/Rivera because defendants didn’t show a biased juror sat |
| Scope of Brady instruction / limiting instruction | Jimenez argued jury may consider all properly admitted Brady evidence at trial | Defendants wanted instruction limiting jury to five Brady items disclosed at summary judgment and complained of surprise from extra theories in closing | Affirmed; trial record supersedes summary-judgment record; evidence admissible at trial may be considered and defendants weren’t unfairly surprised |
| Sufficiency of evidence — absence of full criminal trial transcripts | Jimenez relied on other evidence to prove Brady violations | Defendants argued plaintiff needed to introduce full prior trial transcripts to evaluate materiality under Agurs | Rejected; argument forfeited for appellate review and on merits criminal transcripts not required if plaintiff proved claim by other admissible evidence |
| Admissibility of police-practices expert (McCrary) | Expert helped jurors understand standard investigative practices and departures relevant to deliberate misconduct | Defendants said testimony gave improper legal conclusions and opined on witness credibility | Affirmed; objections largely forfeited; expert properly described professional norms and departures without offering prohibited legal conclusions or impermissible credibility findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (racially based peremptory strikes unconstitutional)
- Martinez-Salazar v. United States, 528 U.S. 304 (harmless-error approach when peremptory challenges are lost)
- Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (erroneous denial of peremptory challenge does not automatically require reversal; focus on whether biased juror sat)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose material exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (impeachment evidence includes deals and promises to witnesses)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (materiality of omitted Brady evidence assessed in context of the entire record)