863 F.3d 734
7th Cir.2017Background
- Reginald Pittman, a pretrial detainee, attempted suicide by hanging in Madison County jail on Dec. 19, 2007; he survived but is in a vegetative state.
- Pittman had left a note blaming guards for denying access to crisis counselors; crisis-team referrals are part of jail suicide-prevention procedures.
- Plaintiff sued under the Eighth Amendment (deliberate indifference) and asserted state-law claims; district court granted summary judgment for defendants, which the Seventh Circuit partially reversed, then case proceeded to jury trial.
- Key witness Bradley Banovz, who was housed adjacent to Pittman and interviewed three hours after the attempt, gave a clear recorded video statement in 2007 but testified at trial seven years later with poor recollection and demeanor.
- Defense counsel had orally agreed before trial to allow admission of Banovz’s 2007 videotaped interview if plaintiff called him, but during trial defense counsel objected and the district judge excluded the tape as hearsay, despite the prior agreement.
- The Seventh Circuit majority held the district court erred in excluding the videotape (stipulation should have bound defendants and no Rule 403 basis was stated) and vacated and remanded for retrial; a dissent argued exclusion was within discretion and any error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 2007 videotaped statement | Stipulation by defense allowed tape; tape was more reliable than 7-year-old live testimony and should be admitted | Tape is hearsay lacking proper foundation; district judge properly excluded it | Majority: Exclusion was error—parties’ agreement to admit was enforceable and no Rule 403 justification given; vacated and remanded |
| Effect of exclusion on verdict (harmless error) | Exclusion was prejudicial because tape was central and would have refreshed memory and shown demeanor differences | Error (if any) was harmless because Banovz testified and was allowed to read transcript to refresh memory; jury still credited guards | Majority: Error not harmless given closeness of case; remand for new trial. Dissent: Error harmless and verdict would stand |
| Binding nature of informal agreement/stipulation | Parties’ pretrial agreement to admit the tape bound defense and waived hearsay objection | Agreement was informal, disputed, not presented as formal stipulation, and could be disclaimed; burden was on plaintiff to lay foundation | Majority: Stipulation/enforcement principle controls; stipulations are enforceable and not lightly retractable—defense can’t set it aside without manifest injustice |
| Trial-court discretion re: foundational requirement for refreshing witness memory | Tape was proper to refresh and corroborate; judge should have admitted under parties’ agreement | Judge had discretion to require foundation under FRE and to exclude hearsay if foundation lacking | Majority: Judge abused discretion in excluding tape without applying Rule 403 or explaining reason; remand. Dissent: Judge acted within discretion; exclusion supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
- United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (stipulations can waive hearsay objections)
- Lewis v. City of Chicago Police Dept., 590 F.3d 427 (harmless error standard in civil trials)
- United States v. Wingate, 128 F.3d 1157 (stipulation enforcement principles)
- United States v. Bell, 980 F.2d 1095 (stipulation precedent)
- Lloyd v. Loeffler, 694 F.2d 489 (stipulation precedent)
- Cummins Diesel Michigan, Inc. v. The Falcon, 305 F.2d 721 (stipulation precedent)
- United States v. Kanu, 695 F.3d 74 (stipulation precedent)
- Noel Shows, Inc. v. United States, 721 F.2d 327 (Rule 403 may override stipulation in limited circumstances)