Moriconi v. Williamson et al
Filing
134
OPINION: Plaintiff Paul F. Moriconi's Motion for New Trial (d/e 132 ) is DENIED. SEE Written Opinion. Entered by Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins on 4/27/2015. (ME, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 27 April, 2015 04:33:31 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
PAUL F. MORICONI,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRAVIS KOESTER,
Defendant,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 11-cv-3022
OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Paul F. Moriconi’s
Motion for New Trial (d/e 132) (Motion). The parties consented to have this
matter heard before this Court. Consent to the Exercise of Jurisdiction by a
United States Magistrate Judge and Reference Order entered April 11,
2014 (d/e 74). On July 29, 2009, Defendant Sangamon County, Illinois,
Deputy Sheriff Travis Koester shocked Plaintiff Moriconi four times with a
Taser and arrested him for obstructing a police officer. As a result,
Moriconi brought this action against Defendant Koester, claiming that
Koester violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force and by
arresting him without probable cause. See Final Pretrial Order entered
March 5, 2015 (d/e 120).
Page 1 of 4
On March 9 and 10, 2015, the Court held a jury trial on Moriconi’s
claims. Minute Entries entered March 9 and 10, 2015. On March 10, 2015,
a jury returned verdicts in favor of Koester and against Moriconi. The Court
entered judgment on the verdicts. See Judgment entered March 11, 2015
(d/e 131). Moriconi now asks the Court to set aside the jury’s verdicts and
the judgment, and order a new trial. For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is DENIED.
Moriconi argues that the verdicts were against the manifest weight of
the evidence. Moriconi correctly states the heavy burden he must meet to
prevail on this ground:
A Motion for a New Trial based on insufficiency of the evidence
should be granted only if the verdict is against the manifest
weight of the evidence. . . . Challengers to a verdict bear
“particularly heavy burden” because a court will set aside a
verdict as contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence “only
if no rational jury could have rendered a verdict.” Moore Exrail
Estate of Grady v. Duleja, 546 F.3d. 423, 427 (7th Cir. 2008).
Motion, ¶ 3. Moriconi fails to meet this burden. Moriconi, Koester, and
Springfield, Illinois, Police Department Sergeant Brock Butcher testified as
eye witnesses of the July 29, 2009, incident. The jury’s decision turned on
credibility: if the jury believed Moriconi, then Koester violated his rights;
but, if the jury believed Koester and Butcher, then the jury could find that
Koester did not violate Moriconi’s rights, but rather, used reasonable force
Page 2 of 4
and had probable cause to arrest. Koester’s evidence was sufficient to
support the verdicts.
Moriconi argues that Koester presented no evidence to explain the
third and fourth times that he shocked Moriconi with the Taser. The Court
disagrees. Koester testified that he continued to shock Moriconi with the
Taser after Moriconi fell to the ground because Moriconi refused to comply
with Koester’s direction to roll over and because Moriconi swiped at the
Taser wires in an effort to defeat the effectiveness of the Taser. Moriconi
testified he did not specifically remember what happened after he fell to the
ground. If the jurors believed Koester, they could find that the repeated
shocking was reasonable under the circumstances. The request for a new
trial based on the insufficiency of the evidence is denied.
Moriconi also argues that the verdict was against the preponderance
of the evidence. The Court again disagrees. The evidence presented by
Koester, if believed, was sufficient to convince a jury that Moriconi failed to
prove liability by a preponderance of the evidence.
The remainder of the Motion challenges rulings that the Court made
during or before the trial. The Court remains unpersuaded by Moriconi’s
arguments on these issues. The Court reaffirms these rulings on the
Page 3 of 4
grounds previously stated and denies the request for a new trial based on
these rulings.
THEREFORE Plaintiff Paul F. Moriconi’s Motion for New Trial
(d/e 132) is DENIED.
ENTER: April 27, 2015
s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 4 of 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?