Katherine Black v. Cherie Wrigley
997 F.3d 702
7th Cir.2021Background:
- Katherine and Bernard Black are Northwestern law professors; Bernard became conservator for his sister Joanne and redirected much of her ~ $3M inheritance to himself and Katherine.
- Denver probate court found Bernard committed civil theft of $1.5M, trebled damages, and entered a $4.5M judgment later affirmed on appeal.
- Katherine submitted a letter to a New York guardianship court on Northwestern letterhead alleging misconduct by Esaun Pinto and asserting the Colorado court authorized an investigation; Pamela Kerr (forensic accountant) later drafted a letter calling that assertion “100% false.”
- Cherie Wrigley (Bernard’s cousin) uploaded Kerr’s draft and filed an ethics complaint with Northwestern; Katherine sued Wrigley and Kerr in federal court for defamation and sued Wrigley for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- Trial (Aug. 2019) ended with a jury verdict for defendants; Katherine appealed pro se, arguing multiple trial errors: evidentiary exclusions, improper defense statements in closing, omission of a jury instruction on a Wrigley defamation claim, and the court’s refusal to let her give closing argument or replace counsel after her attorney’s breakdown.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidentiary exclusions | Court wrongly excluded six categories of evidence (letter excerpts, transcripts, emails, NY documents, Northwestern memo, deposition/privilege log) | Exclusions were discretionary, cumulative, hearsay, or unfairly prejudicial; some parts were consented to | No abuse of discretion or plain error; many exclusions were justified or invited by plaintiff’s counsel |
| Improper defense statements in closing | Defense counsel lied and made injurious, improper remarks in closing | Comments were permissible inferences from evidence; jury instructions mitigate prejudice | Overruled objection; statements did not warrant reversal; no plain error in civil closing arguments |
| Omitted jury instruction on Wrigley defamation | Court omitted instruction on Wrigley’s alleged defamation based on Kerr’s letter uploaded to Northwestern | Wrigley’s defamation claim was effectively dismissed before trial or safely resolved against plaintiff | Omission may have been error, but plaintiff failed plain-error showing that outcome probably would differ; verdict stands |
| Attorney incapacity / pro se request | Court erred by denying Katherine leave to present closing or to replace counsel after Homyk’s Friday breakdown | Court has broad discretion to manage counsel changes and to deny mid-trial pro se requests when litigant is disruptive; civil plaintiffs have no right to effective assistance of counsel | No abuse of discretion; denial did not warrant retrial; remedy for attorney failings is malpractice action, not retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Fields v. City of Chicago, 981 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. 2020) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Stringel v. Methodist Hosp. of Ind., Inc., 89 F.3d 415 (7th Cir. 1996) (plain-error standard for unpreserved evidentiary issues)
- Sanchez v. City of Chicago, 880 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2018) (invited error/consent bars complaint about the court’s rulings)
- Kafka v. Truck Ins. Exch., 19 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 1994) (no plain-error review for civil closing-argument complaints)
- Jones v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 188 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 1999) (district court discretion supervising counsel and closing arguments)
- Prod. Specialties Grp., Inc. v. Minsor Sys., Inc., 513 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2008) (plain-error reversal requires showing outcome likely different)
- DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 1999) (no retrial for civil counsel mistakes)
- Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., 831 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2016) (broad discretion to control closing arguments)