Shaquille Griffin v. Richard Bell
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18599
| 7th Cir. | 2012

Background

  • Griffin, a Chicago public high school freshman, sues Officer Bell under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force; jury verdict for Bell; Griffin appeals on jury-selection process and evidentiary rulings.
  • Incident at Corliss High School: Griffin allegedly wore dress-code noncompliant attire; Bell instructed removal of his hat; after Griffins refuses, Bell detains him and a struggle ensues for about 20–30 minutes with Griffin alleging excessive force.
  • Griffin testified to a different version of events (hat removed then Bell allegedly threw him, head-butted, dragged, and head-injured Griffin); Griffin’s mother testified to injuries.
  • Pretrial, Bell moved to exclude a two-minute video of part of the incident; district court excluded the video, excerpts, and still photos due to lack of foundation, partial view, and potential prejudice.
  • During trial Griffin sought to use still photographs and to refresh recollection with the video; the district court barred this; Griffin appeals the jury-impaneling and evidentiary rulings.
  • Griffin challenges the district court’s juror-challenge rulings as abusive; Griffin argues for admission of video/photos and use of video to refresh recollection; Griffin contends the court erred in permitting testimony about CPD arrest procedures.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying challenges for cause to jurors. Griffin argues Carel, Maamari, and particularly Carel, showed bias favoring police; Mahoney’s exclusion affected the panel. Bell contends no abuse; jurors showed openness to evidence and commitments to follow instructions. No abuse; jurors not shown irrational bias; no prejudice established; Mahoney not on panel; Carel and Maamari kept as jurors.
Whether the district court erred in excluding still photographs from the video as unduly prejudicial and unauthenticated. Griffin contends photographs were admissible using Rule 901 authentication; video provided probative value. Video/photos lacked proper authentication and were prejudicial due to selective portrayal. Court правильно excluded; even if alternative grounds considered, ruling stands; authentication and prejudice concerns supported.
Whether the district court erred in prohibiting Griffin from explaining that he refreshed his recollection with the video at trial. Video memory refreshed Griffins’s recollection; exclusion prevented explaining trial inconsistency. Ruling consistent with excluding video; no established need to explain recollection via video. Harmless error; no miscarriage of justice shown.
Whether Officer Bell’s testimony about CPD arrest rules affected the outcome. Testimony connected arrest procedure to credibility and potential bias. Such testimony was at most a minor reference; not prejudicial to mandate a new trial. No reversible error; evidence did not affect outcome.

Key Cases Cited

  • United States v. Fletcher, 634 F.3d 395 (7th Cir. 2011) (deference to district court on voir dire rulings; abuse of discretion requires prejudice to overturn)
  • United States v. Hicks, 635 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir. 2011) (deferential review of voir dire rulings; prejudice required for reversal)
  • United States v. Scott, 267 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2001) (jury-selection discretion left to trial judge)
  • United States v. Lott, 442 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 2006) (focus on actual sitting jurors rather than alternates for prejudice analysis)
  • United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000) (prejudice standard in juror challenges; actual sitting jurors matter)
  • Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (1988) (juror impartiality and voir dire guidance)
  • Thompson v. Altheimer & Gray, 248 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2001) (bias must be irrational or unshakable to require removal; can suspend judgment pending evidence)
  • United States v. Ricketts, 146 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 1998) (general beliefs about credibility not automatic bias; need case-specific assessment)
  • Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (bias must be irrational or unshakable to disqualify)
  • Fleenor v. Anderson, 171 F.3d 1096 (7th Cir. 1999) (bias must be irrational or unshakable to disqualify juror)
  • Hess v. Reg-Ellen Machine Tool Corp., 423 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2005) (waived issues if not raised; alternative grounds may sustain ruling)
  • United States v. Zuniga-Lazaro, 388 F.3d 308 (7th Cir. 2004) (acknowledges alternative dispositive grounds for ruling)
  • Senese v. Chicago Area I.B. of T. Pension Fund, 237 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2001) (evidence admissibility and prejudice considerations)
  • United States v. Allen, 605 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2010) (competency to serve imparitially when questions of consistency arise)
Read the full case