Robert Farnik v. City of Chicago, 19-2104

Background

In May 2013 neighbors and animal-control volunteers reported a German Shepherd (Rex) in poor condition at Robert Farnik’s property; Officer Marian Horan responded, a crowd entered the yard, rescued the dogs, and Horan filed an animal-cruelty report.
Farnik was arrested two weeks later; he alleges tight handcuffing caused hand injuries and claims he was cooperative. He produced veterinary records showing recent vet care and the state later nolle prossed the criminal charge.
Farnik and his wife sued Horan and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (false arrest and excessive force) plus related Illinois tort and indemnity claims; several claims were dismissed before trial and some counts were dropped at trial.
The jury returned a verdict for defendants; the district court denied Farnik’s mid-trial mistrial motion and post-trial motion for a new trial.
On appeal Farnik challenged four trial rulings: denial of mistrial after a venireperson’s comments, denial of a longer continuance and exclusion of testimony about a decedent friend, defense remarks in closing implying personal liability for the full damages request, and various jury-instruction choices.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voir dire / mistrial after venireperson said she may recognize plaintiffs and later said “good luck” to officer	Venire was tainted; the juror’s remarks and departure created prejudice requiring mistrial or further voir dire	Remarks were equivocal, judge questioned the juror privately, she was excused, and brief departing comments were de minimis	Denial of mistrial affirmed: no abuse of discretion; judge properly probed and the conduct was not prejudicial
Denial of requested one-hour continuance / exclusion of testimony about friend’s death	Farnik arrived late and distraught after learning of a friend’s death; needed more time and could explain lateness to elicit sympathy/reason for demeanor	Court granted a 30-minute recess; testimony about the death was irrelevant and prejudicial; counsel violated the court’s ruling by eliciting it anyway	Denial affirmed: no prejudice shown and exclusion of irrelevant evidence was proper; counsel disregarded the ruling
Closing argument statements implying the $975,000 award would come from Officer Horan personally	Defense misstated or misled jury to believe compensatory and punitive damages would be taken from Horan personally, unfairly prejudicing plaintiffs	Defense argued only that punitive damages (not compensatory) would be paid by Horan personally; statements were legally accurate and any confusion was cured by plaintiff’s rebuttal	No error: defense’s distinction was accurate; court permitted plaintiff to clarify; no prejudice shown
Jury instructions (source of punitive damages, “multiple offenses” language, animal-neglect elements)	Instructions were confusing or unnecessary and could mislead jury about liability and probable cause	Instructions were appropriate or clarified on the record; animal-neglect elements were a permissible alternative offense for probable cause analysis	Affirmed: instructions read as a whole were not misleading; animal-neglect charge properly provided an alternative basis for probable cause

Key Cases Cited

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires a policy or custom)
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (trial judge controls scope of voir dire; no fixed formula)
Christmas v. City of Chicago, 682 F.3d 632 (abuse-of-discretion standard for mistrial denial)
United States v. Danford, 435 F.3d 682 (trial judge best positioned to assess juror misconduct seriousness)
Houlihan v. City of Chicago, 871 F.3d 540 (abuse-of-discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
Muhammad v. Pearson, 900 F.3d 898 (probable cause is an absolute bar to false-arrest claims under § 1983)
Clarett v. Roberts, 657 F.3d 664 (jury instructions reviewed for whether they so thoroughly misled the jury as to cause prejudice)
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (juror bias and voir dire principles)