Lynette Wilson v. City of Chicago
758 F.3d 875
7th Cir.2014Background
- Raul Barriera, diagnosed with schizophrenia and off medication, was barricaded in his bedroom; his mother Lynette Wilson called 911 fearing he might harm himself.
- Chicago officers Hurman, Cummens, and Jerome responded; Jerome deployed a taser and Hurman fired two shots after Barriera allegedly lunged with a knife; Barriera died from the wounds.
- Wilson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force), asserted wrongful death and survival claims under Illinois law, and sued the City under respondeat superior.
- At trial the jury found for defendants on all claims; the district court denied Wilson’s post-trial motions.
- On appeal Wilson challenged (1) jury instructions on wrongful death/willful-and-wanton standard and burden of proof, and (2) several evidentiary rulings admitting testimony about Barriera’s substance use, a hidden knife, and excluding certain questioning of officer Jerome.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instructions impermissibly shifted burden to plaintiff to disprove justification for shooting | Wilson: court required her to disprove defendants’ justification, shifting burden unlawfully | Defendants: plaintiff must prove elements of battery (including lack of legal justification) and willful/wanton conduct | Court: Affirmed—under Illinois law plaintiff must prove lack of legal justification as part of battery/willful-and-wanton showing (Davis controls) |
| Whether justification/self-defense instruction was improper because defendants didn’t plead it as an affirmative defense | Wilson: absence of pleaded affirmative defense meant justification shouldn’t be considered | Defendants: lack of justification is integral to plaintiff’s burden to prove unauthorized touching/willful and wanton conduct | Held: Rejected—defendants’ failure to plead justification as affirmative defense did not bar the court from requiring plaintiff to disprove justification |
| Whether omission of statutory language (“actual or deliberate intention to cause harm”) from willful-and-wanton definition was error | Wilson: omission prevented jury from considering admission that Hurman intentionally shot decedent as dispositive of willful-and-wanton conduct | Defendants: instruction, read as whole and coupled with excessive-force instruction, properly informed jury | Held: Harmless if any error—the jury’s verdict on excessive force meant plaintiff failed to prove lack of justification regardless of precise wording |
| Evidentiary rulings (admission of past substance use, knife found taped to thigh, exclusion of certain questions to Jerome) | Wilson: evidence of drug/alcohol use and the knife were irrelevant/prejudicial; exclusion of questions denied impeachment/essential testimony | Defendants: evidence was relevant to credibility/sequence of events; exclusion or limitation was within trial court’s discretion | Held: No abuse of discretion; Wilson waived or forfeited some arguments (e.g., failure to raise prejudice or make offer of proof); admission of substance-use evidence and knife testimony was proper; excluded questions were not preserved by offer of proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Common v. City of Chicago, 661 F.3d 940 (7th Cir.) (admissibility of contemporaneous evidence that makes one version of events more likely)
- Davis v. City of Chicago, 8 N.E.3d 120 (Ill. App. Ct.) (requiring plaintiff to prove lack of legal justification as part of willful-and-wanton/battery analysis)
- Rapold v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 718 F.3d 602 (7th Cir.) (review of jury instructions assessed as a whole; prejudice required for reversal)
- Palmquist v. Selvik, 111 F.3d 1332 (7th Cir.) (focus on what officer knew at time of shooting; evidence outside shooting timeframe may be irrelevant)
- Mankey v. Bennett, 38 F.3d 353 (7th Cir.) (probative value of substance-abuse evidence can be substantially outweighed where purpose for admission is gone)
- Naeem v. McKesson Drug Co., 444 F.3d 593 (7th Cir.) (preservation rules: must state specific grounds for objection at trial to preserve appellate review)