Whitehead v. Bond, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10134

Whitehead, plaintiff, sued several Chicago police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and excessive force arising from events after her son Daniel was stopped for a traffic violation and found with crack cocaine.
Daniel attempted to flee; a struggle ensued and he was subdued; a crowd gathered; neighbors and witnesses gave competing accounts of Whitehead’s conduct.
Whitehead claims she calmly questioned officers and was arrested without cause; officers testified she was aggressive and tried to move toward Bond, justifying detention.
A prisoner wagon was used to detain Whitehead for several minutes; testimony about what happened at the wagon and who observed what varied among witnesses at trial.
At trial, witnesses conflicted about who was present, the sequence of events, and whether Whitehead resisted arrest; the jury credited the officers’ account.
Whitehead’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial were denied; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, framing the case as a credibility contest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in denying JMOL on false arrest	Whitehead argues officers’ testimony was inherently incredible and physically impossible.	Bond/Stevens/Stack contend record supports probable cause and lack of legal error in the verdict.	No reversible error; jury could credit officers’ testimony and uphold probable cause.
Whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Weight of evidence favors Whitehead; credibility issues warrant a new trial.	Verdict supported by the jury’s credibility determinations and the evidence as a whole.	Not against the manifest weight; district court acted within its discretion to deny new trial.
Whether evidentiary rulings under Rule 403 were abusive	Pre-trial and background evidence was unfairly prejudicial and should have been excluded.	Evidence was probative background and credibility-relevant; any prejudice was outweighed by probative value.	No reversible error; district court did not abuse discretion; any prejudice was not substantial.
Whether admission of high-violent-crime-area testimony was proper	Foundation and relevance of the ‘high-violent-crime area’ label were insufficient and prejudicial.	Area-conditions testimony properly supported probable cause analysis and was admissible.	Proper foundation and relevance; no abuse of discretion in admitting the testimony.

Mejia v. Cook County, 650 F.3d 631 (7th Cir.2011) (proper standard for weighing evidence in a new-trial context; credibility rests with jury)
Colston v. United States, 936 F.2d 312 (7th Cir.1991) (jury may credit some testimony over others; district court should not weigh credibility)
United States v. Alcantar, 83 F.3d 185 (7th Cir.1996) (jury decides credibility; appellate court gives deference to verdict on credibility questions)
Wipf v. Kowalski, 519 F.3d 380 (7th Cir.2008) (court will not substitute its own credibility assessment for jury’s)
Latino v. Kaizer, 58 F.3d 310 (7th Cir.1995) (credibility determinations are within the jury’s province)
Galvan v. Norberg, 678 F.3d 581 (7th Cir.2012) (deferential review of new-trial decision; district court’s weighing allowed)
Aldridge v. Forest River, Inc., 635 F.3d 870 (7th Cir.2011) (district court given wide discretion in evaluating evidence for new trial)
Cerabio LLC v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., 410 F.3d 981 (7th Cir.2005) (Rule 403 balancing highly deferential)
Bullock v. United States, 632 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir.2011) (discussion of probable cause and permissible detentions in stop contexts)