William Viramontes v. City of Chicago, 840 F.3d 423

Background

William Viramontes was convicted in Illinois state court of aggravated assault and resisting arrest after an incident at a street festival; the state judge found he "actively swung in the direction of a police officer and missed" and then resisted.
Viramontes sued two officers and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force; the jury returned a verdict for the officers and the district court denied Viramontes’s Rule 59 motion for a new trial.
The district court, applying this circuit’s Gilbert framework to implement Heck v. Humphrey, instructed the civil jury to accept the state-court factual findings (the "Gilbert instruction") and read that instruction at the start of trial and as necessary during evidence.
The district court excluded certain impeachment/contradiction evidence that would have directly disputed the state-court finding but did not permit impeachment aimed at attacking witness credibility based on inconsistent prior testimony only when the inconsistency would imply invalidity of the conviction.
Defense counsel made improper closing statements: used Viramontes’s 2012 felony conviction for a propensity argument and praised officers as "stars," both contrary to pretrial rulings; objections were sustained and jurors were told counsels’ statements are not evidence.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed: (1) the Gilbert instruction’s content, timing, and limited use were proper; (2) excluding the particular impeachment was harmless error; and (3) defense counsel’s closing misconduct did not warrant a new trial given prompt objections, curative instructions, and brevity of the remarks.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity/content of Gilbert instruction (Heck implementation)	The instruction unlawfully relied on state-court factual findings rather than the criminal complaint	Circuit precedent permits taking the earlier proceeding's factual findings as true to avoid Heck conflict	Held: Instruction content was proper under Gilbert and circuit law; it mirrored the state-court findings and did not misstate law
Timing/use of Gilbert instruction and evidentiary effect	Court should have waited to give the instruction only after Viramontes directly contradicted his conviction; preventing impeachment of officer for inconsistent testimony deprived him of defense	Court may give instruction at start and during trial; Heck bars only arguments that would imply conviction invalidity; impeachment for inconsistency is allowed but not if it seeks to negate the conviction	Held: Timing was proper (per Gilbert). Court erred in barring impeachment for inconsistency but error was harmless because prior testimony was consistent with state findings
Defense counsel misconduct in closing (propensity / bolstering)	Misconduct (propensity use of 2012 conviction; character bolstering) prejudiced trial and warrants new trial	Objections were sustained, court gave curative instructions, and remarks were brief — no prejudice	Held: Remarks were improper but not prejudicial; denial of new trial affirmed (deferential abuse-of-discretion review)

Key Cases Cited

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1974) (a § 1983 claim is barred if success would necessarily imply invalidity of a conviction)
Gilbert v. Cook, 512 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 2008) (district courts should instruct juries to accept prior proceeding facts as true to implement Heck)
Helman v. Duhaime, 742 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2014) (focus on factual basis, not formal complaint, when applying Heck)
Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., 831 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2016) (de novo review of jury instructions implicating questions of law; district court has discretion over wording)
Christmas v. City of Chicago, 682 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2012) (party seeking new trial for counsel misconduct must show prejudice)
United States v. Burt, 495 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2007) (impeachment targets witness credibility and is distinct from proving truth of an inconsistent assertion)