970 F.3d 823
7th Cir.2020Background
- In 2007 Reginald Pittman, a pretrial detainee at Madison County Jail, attempted suicide by hanging and was left in a vegetative state.
- Pittman had repeatedly asked deputies Randy Eaton and Matthew Werner for crisis counseling; inmate Bradley Banovz later stated (on video) the deputies promised referrals but did not follow through.
- Procedural history: district court granted summary judgment for defendants (2011); this court reversed in Pittman I and remanded; first trial (2015) verdict for defendants reversed in part in Pittman II for exclusion of Banovz’s video; second trial (2018) again returned a verdict for defendants.
- On this appeal Pittman challenged (a) a jury instruction he says applied a subjective deliberate-indifference test rather than the objective Miranda standard and (b) two evidentiary rulings excluding testimony.
- The Seventh Circuit held the jury instruction misstated the law by using the phrase “consciously failed to take reasonable measures,” which injected a subjective element contrary to Miranda/Kingsley, reversed the judgment, and remanded for a new trial.
- The court affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings excluding (1) witness testimony that defendants were “deliberately indifferent” and (2) Banovz’s testimony about notifying unnamed guards, concluding those exclusions were not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction misstated the governing standard (objective v. subjective) for a Fourteenth Amendment medical-care claim by a pretrial detainee | Instruction used language requiring a subjective inquiry (e.g., "consciously failed"), but Miranda requires an objective-reasonableness inquiry | Instruction accurately captured mental-state elements and was proper | Court: Instruction misstated Miranda by introducing a subjective element; reversal and remand for new trial |
| Whether Pittman preserved his objection to the jury instruction under Rule 51 | Objection was timely and sufficiently specific to allow the court to correct the instruction before charge | Defendants argued objection was untimely/insufficient | Court: Objection preserved; timing gave court opportunity to act; merits reached |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by excluding witnesses from testifying that defendants were “deliberately indifferent” | Testimony should be allowed to explain facts and state opinions on mental state | Allowing such testimony would confuse jury and risk outcome-determinative opinions inconsistent with Miranda’s objective standard | Court: Exclusion upheld—trial court reasonably excluded such testimony to avoid confusion and prejudice |
| Whether exclusion of Banovz’s testimony that he told unnamed guards Pittman was suicidal was improper | Testimony was relevant to notice of risk | Defendants rely on prior appellate rulings and evidentiary concerns | Court: Exclusion affirmed (issue already rejected in prior appeal); not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. County of Lake, 900 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018) (adopted objective-reasonableness standard for pretrial-detainee medical-needs claims).
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015) (Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims by pretrial detainees are evaluated under an objective test).
- Pittman ex rel. Hamilton v. Cnty. of Madison (Pittman I), 746 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2014) (reversed summary judgment and remanded).
- Pittman ex rel. Hamilton v. Cnty. of Madison (Pittman II), 863 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2017) (reversed in part for erroneous exclusion of Banovz’s video).
- Viramontes v. City of Chicago, 840 F.3d 423 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing instructional errors and prejudice).
- Guzman v. City of Chicago, 689 F.3d 740 (7th Cir. 2012) (prejudice from instructional error assessed by likelihood of different outcome).