United States v. Aldo Brown
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17403
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Officers Aldo Brown and George Stacker entered a Chicago convenience store to investigate a drug tip; store employee Jecque Howard was handcuffed and later searched. Surveillance video captured Brown punching, grabbing, forcing Howard to the floor, handcuffing him, kicking him, and then arresting him after finding a gun.
- Brown claimed his use of force was reasonable because he saw a gun, Howard resisted, threatened bystanders, tried to grab Brown’s gun, and fled; his postincident reports described an emergency takedown and omitted acknowledging punches/kicks.
- A federal grand jury indicted Brown on two counts of falsifying police records (18 U.S.C. § 1519) and one count under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for willfully depriving Howard of Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force.
- Brown sought to call John Farrell, a former Chicago officer, as an expert to apply the Chicago Police Department’s Use of Force Model to the surveillance video and opine that Brown’s actions were consistent with departmental policy and thus reasonable.
- The district court excluded Farrell under Rules 403 and 702 (probative value outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice; not helpful to jury) and expressed concern about Rule 704(b) (impermissible opinion on defendant’s state of mind); the court allowed limited testimony from two CPD instructors only on report-filing training.
- The jury acquitted Brown of the falsification counts but convicted him under § 242 for using excessive force. Brown appealed the exclusion of his expert; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Brown's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony on departmental use-of-force policy | Farrell’s expertise would help jurors apply the Use of Force Model and show Brown acted reasonably | Departmental policy is irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness inquiry and would be unhelpful and prejudicial | Exclusion affirmed—expert unnecessary where facts (punching/kicking) are within jurors’ common understanding; Rule 403 supports exclusion |
| Expert opinion about ultimate issue/state of mind (Rule 704(b)) | Expert may opine on objective reasonableness based on experience and facts | Proposed testimony would improperly opine about Brown’s state of mind and tell jury what result to reach | Exclusion affirmed—Farrell’s plan risked impermissible state-of-mind conclusions and usurping jury’s role |
| Consistency of excluding defense expert but permitting CPD instructors to testify | Exclusion was inconsistent and unfairly prevented defense from presenting complete expert defense | Government witnesses were limited to factual foundation about report-filing and were barred from opining on use of force or Fourth Amendment training | No inconsistency—the instructors were limited to narrow factual topics; judge preserved fairness |
| Constitutional right to present a complete defense | Broad admission of policy expert was necessary to a meaningful opportunity to present a defense | Trial judge properly balanced probative value and potential prejudice under Rules 403/702; categorical admission not required | Held against Brown—the judge conducted case-specific balancing and did not abridge Brown’s rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness standard governs excessive-force claims)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (objective reasonableness depends on facts and circumstances of each case)
- Thompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (violation of departmental policy is generally immaterial to constitutional excessive-force inquiry)
- Florek v. Village of Mundelein, 649 F.3d 594 (expert testimony about police practice not categorically barred; may assist when specialized knowledge needed)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (constitutional standards must not vary by local police practice)
- Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (§ 242 requires specific intent/willfulness)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (criminal defendants have right to present a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense)