Dillon v. City Of Chicago et al

Filing 83

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 4/2/2012: Defendants' motion in limine to bar plaintiff's counsel from introducing any evidence or argument regarding defendants' alleged failure to call witnesses [#74] is denied. Defendants' motion in limine to bar plaintiff's counsel from making an improper opening statement [#74] is denied. See statement section of this order for details. Mailed notice(mad, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Joan H. Lefkow

CASE NUMBER

09 C 5251

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

4/2/2012

Dillon vs. City of Chicago, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Defendants’ motion in limine to bar plaintiff’s counsel from introducing any evidence or argument regarding
defendants’ alleged failure to call witnesses [#74] is denied. Defendants’ motion in limine to bar plaintiff’s
counsel from making an improper opening statement [#74] is denied. See statement section of this order for
details.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT
1.

Bar any evidence or argument regarding defendants’ alleged failure to call witnesses

Defendants ask the court to prohibit plaintiff from arguing that defendants should have put on certain
witnesses. Plaintiff counters that if defendants testify that several other Chicago police officers witnessed the
incident and they are not called to testify, that plaintiff may comment on their absence. The court agrees.
Plaintiff is allowed to point out the alleged deficiencies in defendants’ case.
2.

Bar plaintiff’s counsel from making an improper opening statement and from arguing an insufficient
investigation occurred,1 including lack of fingerprint evidence

Plaintiff intends to ask the defendant officers whether they had the ability to request that fingerprint
analysis be conducted on the items recovered from plaintiff, and if so, whether they requested that such
analysis be performed. Plaintiff intends on making reasonable argument based on the defendant officers’
responses to these questions. Defendants ask this court to prohibit plaintiff from arguing that an investigation
should have continued or that further forensic evidence should have been collected and examined because
any such evidence or argument is irrelevant, prejudicial and immaterial to the central issue of whether
defendants had probable cause to arrest plaintiff. Plaintiff admits that he is not alleging that the investigation
or lack thereof did not amount to sufficient probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest.2 Rather, he is alleging that
the defendant officers deliberately charged plaintiff with a crime they knew he did not commit and that they
knowingly falsified the charges in their police reports to support their version of events. Plaintiff’s argument
goes to the credibility of the witness officers, not whether they had probable cause to arrest him. Plaintiff
will be allowed to inquire of the witness officers what post-arrest steps they took to confirm that plaintiff
committed the crimes with which he was charged. Any confusion regarding the relevancy of this line of
questioning will be addressed by the court by a limiting instruction at the close of the case.
09C5251 Dillon vs. City of Chicago, et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT

1. Plaintiff states that he does not intend to argue that the defendant officers had a constitutional
obligation to pursue certain scientific tests or to conduct a specific investigation.
2. “Probable cause to arrest is an absolute defense to any claim under Section 1983 against police officers
for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution.” Mustafa v. City of Chicago, 442 F.3d
544, 547 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Potts v. City of Lafayette, 121 F.3d 1106, 1113 (7th Cir. 1997)).

09C5251 Dillon vs. City of Chicago, et al.

Page 2 of 2