Markith Williams v. Christopher Dieball
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15878
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Markith Williams sued Chicago police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging false arrest and excessive force after an encounter the day after he reclaimed his car from police custody. Trial turned on witness credibility.
- Defendants sought to impeach Williams with seven (court noted six) prior felony convictions from the prior 10 years (drug and one weapons conviction). The district court allowed admission under Fed. R. Evid. 609, limited to date, charge, and sentence.
- Williams filed a brief motion in limine that recited Rule 609 but offered no detailed probative-vs.-prejudice analysis or supporting authority; he did not reply to defendants’ opposition which explicitly addressed Rule 403 balancing.
- At trial defense counsel referred to Williams as a "seven-time convicted felon" and made inflammatory opening remarks; Williams’ counsel did not object at trial to those comments.
- Jury returned verdict for defendants. On appeal Williams argued the court failed to perform or articulate a Rule 403 balancing under Rule 609 and that defense counsel’s opening statements were prejudicial.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: Williams had not preserved the Rule 403 balancing argument and did not obtain relief under plain-error review; inflammatory remarks were inappropriate but not so egregious as to require reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior convictions under Rule 609 (incorporating Rule 403) | Williams: district court failed to articulate probative-prejudice balancing; convictions should be excluded | Defendants: convictions admissible; probative value on credibility outweighed prejudice and motion in limine was too skeletal to preserve the argument | Affirmed — argument waived for appeal due to inadequate presentation below; no plain-error relief warranted |
| Preservation of evidentiary objection | Williams: issue preserved by motion in limine and defendants’ addressing of balancing | Defendants: plaintiff never made a substantive balancing argument or reply; thus waived | Held — plaintiff failed to meaningfully raise the specific Rule 403 argument, so waived |
| Plain-error review for unpreserved evidentiary issue | Williams: asks court to correct unpreserved error under plain-error standard | Defendants: no extraordinary circumstances; plaintiff had opportunity to present full argument | Held — plain-error not applied; equitable factors did not favor review |
| Prejudicial effect of defense counsel’s opening statements | Williams: counsel’s inflammatory references to convictions prejudiced jury and warranted new trial | Defendants: comments addressed credibility; defense later clarified at closing and disavowed using convictions to deny remedies | Held — comments inappropriate but not so egregious or outcome-determinative to require reversal; no preserved objection at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Loughry, 660 F.3d 965 (7th Cir.) (perfunctory Rule 403 consideration may warrant reversal)
- Fednav Int’l Ltd. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 624 F.3d 834 (7th Cir.) (issues not raised in district court are waived on appeal)
- Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 709 (7th Cir.) (undeveloped or conclusory arguments may be waived)
- Milligan v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 686 F.3d 378 (7th Cir.) (failure to raise specific argument forfeits it)
- Echo, Inc. v. Timberland Machines & Irrigation, Inc., 661 F.3d 959 (7th Cir.) (skeletal argument amounts to waiver)
- Pond v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 183 F.3d 592 (7th Cir.) (argument can be waived when not properly presented below)
- Estate of Moreland v. Dieter, 395 F.3d 747 (7th Cir.) (plain-error review in civil cases available only in extraordinary circumstances)
- Gora v. Costa, 971 F.2d 1325 (7th Cir.) (courts should guard against unfair prejudice from a civil-rights plaintiff’s criminal past)
- DeWitt, Porter, Huggett, Schumacher & Morgan, S.C. v. Kovalic, 991 F.2d 1243 (7th Cir.) (improper argument may not warrant reversal absent obvious error)