Simmons v. The City of Chicago
1:14-cv-09042
N.D. Ill.Aug 28, 2017Background
- On Aug 29, 2013 Chicago PD executed a warrant at 930 N. Keystone seeking firearms linked to alleged unlawful use of a weapon by a felon; officers encountered Alonzo McFadden and Aretha Simmons on the porch.
- Officers recovered from a silver purse a loaded 9mm Glock with a defaced serial number and baggies of suspected narcotics; additional firearms and drug-paraphernalia were found inside the house.
- Plaintiffs (members of the Simmons family) allege excessive force (guns pointed at a 3‑year‑old and grandmother; physical force against Aretha) and unreasonable seizure/conversion of property; Aretha was arrested and later acquitted; plaintiffs assert Monell claims against the City for policies/inaction.
- The Court addressed numerous pretrial motions in limine about which factual and expert evidence may be admitted at trial and what Monell‑related materials may be used.
- The Court admitted background evidence explaining why officers were at the residence and what they observed, but excluded much post‑arrest prosecutorial detail, unrelated narcotics lab reports, and broadly prejudicial or collateral incidents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of pre‑entry and on‑scene facts (warrant, observations, items found, arrests) | Plaintiffs sought to limit background to minimal facts (presence and handcuffing) | Defendants wanted the full context to explain why they entered, drew guns, and seized items | Court: Admit warrant, on‑scene observations, arrests and items found; exclude post‑arrest charging/prosecution details and lab reports |
| Evidence of McFadden, his arrest, and related statements | Plaintiffs: McFadden is non‑party; his acts unfairly prejudice | Defendants: His conduct and statements explain officers’ conduct and justify tactics | Court: Admit facts about McFadden’s on‑scene behavior and arrest; exclude evidence about his charging/prosecution and post‑arrest statements |
| DOJ and Task Force reports and related institutional evidence for Monell claim | Plaintiffs: Reports are probative of systemic failures (investigation, discipline) | Defendants: Hearsay and/or unfairly prejudicial, would confuse jury | Court: Overruled hearsay/403 objections; admitted substantial portions addressing supervision/investigation/discipline, but excluded portions on "code of silence" and minor‑use force aspects; reserved line‑by‑line rulings |
| Evidence of other police misconduct/shootings and prior complaint lawsuits (e.g., Laquan McDonald, White) | Plaintiffs: Show pattern/custom supporting Monell | Defendants: Highly prejudicial, risk of mini‑trials and confusion | Court: Excluded unrelated shootings and the White matter under Rule 403; Nash matter undecided; other complaint statistics may be admissible on Monell but not as 404(b) evidence against individual officers |
| Admission of expert testimony (statistical and police‑practice experts) | Plaintiffs: Experts may analyze data and police practices to support Monell | Defendants: Challenges to qualifications, methodologies, late supplementation | Court: Stan Smith (statistics) admissible limited to statistical opinions; Tim Longo (police practices) admissible but subject to limited supplemental deposition and payment terms; Judith Roberts (defense statistician) admissible to critique methodology; Jeffrey Noble excluded on a narrow legal‑state‑of‑law opinion; Daubert hearing ordered for defense expert Hanus |
| Child witness competency and related evidence (Davianna) | Plaintiffs: Child competent and expert may testify about psychiatric impact | Defendants: Challenge to influence, diagnosis, and causation | Court: Found Davianna competent to testify (video deposition allowed); allowed child‑psychiatry expert Dr. Karnik to opine on impact and causation (but excluded non‑expert topics like police tactics beyond effect on child) |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (establishes objective‑reasonableness standard for excessive‑force claims)
- Mays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2009) (admissibility of departmental rules/regulations on intent and punitive damages)
- Daniel v. Cook Cty., 833 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2016) (admissibility of DOJ investigatory reports under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(A)(iii))
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (discusses expert testimony based on assumed facts and limits)
- Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (limits admission of prior arrests without convictions)
- Nelson v. City of Chicago, 810 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir. 2016) (evidentiary treatment of witness credibility/convictions)
- Barber v. City of Chicago, 725 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2013) (evidence rules on prior acts and convictions)
- Christmas v. City of Chicago, 691 F. Supp. 2d 811 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (discusses compensatory damages and jury messaging against municipalities)