Michael A. Willis v. William J. Lep
687 F.3d 826
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Willis (14) and Owens (16) were arrested outside Willis’s home for allegedly dealing drugs; were taken to the station, subjected to a custodial search including underwear inspection (including a claimed strip search) and held for several hours; charges of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance were filed but later dismissed; plaintiffs sued Lepine and Glowacki under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and illegal search and for Illinois malicious prosecution; jury ruled for officers; post-trial motions under Rule 60(b)(3) and Rule 59(a) were denied; plaintiffs appeal asserting trial misconduct and violation of a motion in limine, which the court affirms.
- The district court granted plaintiffs’ in limine motions prior to trial barring references to the 5500 West Congress Parkway block as a “high-crime area” and banning Thompson’s prior arrests/convictions; at trial, plaintiffs highlighted Willis’s and Owens’s character; Thompson was present but not a party; Thompson later pled guilty in the related case; Thompson’s absence kept the focus on the plaintiffs’ credibility and the officers’ surveillance and arrest narrative.
- The trial occurred January 11, 2011; plaintiffs asserted improper closing remarks and repeated in limine breaches; the district court denied relief and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding the alleged misconduct did not prevent a full and fair trial and did not warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(3) or a new trial under Rule 59(a).
- The court held the Rule 60(b)(3) standard was not met, closing remarks did not prejudice the outcome, and the motion-in-limine breaches were not reversible errors given preservation and curative instructions; the verdict was rationally supported by the evidence and weight of credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(3) relief was proper | Willis/ Owens show defense misconduct prevented presentation | No full and fair presentation was prevented | Denied: no abuse of discretion; no full-and-fair prejudice shown |
| Whether closing remarks and defense-initiated objections required relief | Closing misconduct undermined fairness | Misconduct was minimal and curable by instruction | Denied: curative measures neutralized prejudice |
| Whether motion-in-limine breaches require reversal | Cumulative breaches violated ruling | Breaches were limited and not preserved for all instances | Denied: not preserved or prejudicial enough |
| Whether Rule 59(a) new trial standard was met | Jury’s verdict against manifest weight of evidence | Evidence supported verdict; no manifest-weight error | Denied: no manifest-weight violation; no basis for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Wickens v. Shell Oil Co., 620 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 60(b))
- Musch v. Domtar Indus., Inc., 587 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 2009) (Rule 60(b) extraordinary remedy requires exceptional circumstances)
- Tolliver v. Northrop Corp., 786 F.2d 316 (7th Cir. 1986) (abuse-of-discretion standard for discretionary relief)