735 F.3d 639
7th Cir.2013Background
- On Nov. 7, 2007 four plain‑clothes Chicago officers (May, Carroll, Town, Pickett) observed a vacant lot in Humboldt Park, watched a group through binoculars, and arrested four people including plaintiff Morrow and a 14‑year‑old, Lavontay Bell, after observing apparent drug sales and recovering a vial later identified as cocaine.
- Morrow was charged with felony possession; a preliminary hearing was continued twice for the arresting officer’s absence and the charge was dismissed when the 30‑day statutory window expired; all charges were ultimately quashed.
- Morrow sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (false arrest, unlawful search/strip search, conspiracy) and state malicious prosecution; the jury returned a verdict for the defendants after a three‑day trial.
- At trial plaintiff’s counsel elicited testimony about gang activity in the neighborhood; defendants introduced photos from Bell’s Facebook page showing hand signals, guns, and alcohol; plaintiff sought admission of daytime photos of the lot which the court excluded.
- Plaintiff also sought to impeach Officer Carroll with unrelated internal‑investigation findings (denied), and objected to testimony about the bond hearing; the district court gave a limiting instruction distinguishing the perfunctory bond‑hearing probable‑cause finding from the jury’s task.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding the evidence supported probable cause for the arrests and any trial rulings that arguably erred were harmless given the overall record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Facebook photos (Bell) | Photos irrelevant/inflammatory; prejudiced jury | Photos rebutted plaintiff’s gang‑activity theory and responded to plaintiff’s own questioning about gangs | Admission was not reversible error; any error harmless (invited error given plaintiff’s questioning about gangs) |
| Exclusion of plaintiff’s daytime photos of vacant lot | Photo 1 would show surveillance vantage and visibility; useful to jury | Photos taken in daylight; some photos misleading (car present) or added nothing | Excluding most photos harmless; admitting photo 1 would have aided defendants; exclusion was not reversible error |
| Impeachment with unrelated internal‑investigation findings about Officer Carroll | Should be admissible to impeach Carroll’s credibility | Such minor/unrelated allegations would unduly prolong trial and are improper for impeachment | Properly excluded; permitting would open door to interminable trials; court affirmed exclusion |
| Bond‑hearing testimony/limiting instruction | Jury might treat bond judge’s finding as conclusive proof of probable cause | Testimony and limiting instruction clarify bond hearing was perfunctory and not equivalent to trial evidence | Instruction (though could be clearer) was adequate and any error harmless; jury apprised bond hearing was different |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollins v. City of Milwaukee, 574 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2009) (limits on impeachment with minor/unrelated internal investigations)
- Redmond v. Kingston, 240 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2001) (evidentiary limits on impeachment and relevance)
- United States v. Kojayan, 8 F.3d 1315 (9th Cir. 1993) (close cases and reversible error — length of jury deliberations not dispositive)
- United States v. Ottersburg, 76 F.3d 137 (7th Cir. 1996) (context on appellate review of closeness and errors)
- United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113 (1st Cir. 2000) (same: deliberation length and harmless‑error considerations)
A FFIRMED.