Pittman v. County of Madison, State of Illinois et al

Filing 341

ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, Plaintiff's Motions in Limine (Docs. 324 , 330 , 331 , 332 ) are GRANTED, Plaintiff's Motion in Liminie (Doc. 325 ) is DENIED, without prejudice< /b>, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Doc. 333 ) is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT pending argument by Counsel prior to the commencement of trial, Defendants' Motion in Limine (Doc. 328 ) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, and Defendants' Motion in Limine (Doc. 329 ) is GRANTED. Counsel should review this Order carefully for further directives. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 8/5/2022. (arm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
REGINALD PITTMAN, By and through
his Guardian and Next Friend, Robin M.
Hamilton,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COUNTY OF MADISON,
ROBERT HERTZ,
RANDY EATON, and
MATT WERNER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:08-cv-890-DWD

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Before the Court are the parties’ motions in limine, specifically, Plaintiff’s Motion
to Exclude Criminal History Record (regarding witness Huntley) (Doc. 324); Plaintiff’s
Motion to Allow Testimony on Ultimate Issue (Doc. 325) and Defendants’ Objection
thereto (Doc. 327); Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Any Criminal History Record (regarding
witness Hamilton) (Doc. 330); Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine regarding altercations of
Reginal Pittman (Doc. 331); Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine regarding Plaintiff’s criminal
record (Doc. 332); Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine regarding specific acts of violence (Doc.
333); Defendants’ Motion in Limine relative to Plaintiff’s experts giving opinions as to
whether the conduct of Defendants Eaton and Werner was objectively unreasonable
(Doc. 328); and Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of James Mulvaney (Doc. 329).
As a preliminary matter the parties are DIRECTED that they should not reference

in the presence of the jurors the previous trials, the verdicts reached in those trials or the
decisions of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

in this case.

Counsel is also

DIRECTED to advise their respective clients and witnesses of the contents of this order.

I.

Plaintiff’s motions in limine regarding criminal history of April Hamilton
Huntley and Robin Hamilton (Doc. 324 and Doc. 330)
Plaintiff seeks to exclude from trial evidence of any portion of April Hamilton

Huntley’s and Robin Hamilton’s criminal record that is more than 10 years old. Under
Fed. R. Evid. 609(b), such evidence is only admissible if its probative value substantially
outweighs its prejudicial effect and if the proponent gives opposing counsel reasonable
notice of its intent to use such evidence. Counsel for Plaintiff represents that counsel for
Defendants has not provided notice of intent to use such evidence and the record is
devoid of any such notice. Since no notice has been given, further analysis of the
admissibility of such records is unnecessary and Plaintiff’s motions (Doc. 324 and Doc.
330) are GRANTED. Accordingly, the Defendants are barred from introducing evidence
or commenting in the presence of the members of the jury on the criminal history or
record of either April Hamilton Huntley or Robin Hamilton.

II.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine regarding testimony on ultimate issue (Doc. 325)
Defendants’ motion in limine regarding testimony on ultimate issue and
testimony regarding notification of other jail officers (Doc. 328)
Plaintiff seeks an order permitting expert witnesses to testify as to the ultimate

issue in the case. Defendants, in their motion, seek to exclude from evidence any opinions

2

as to whether the conduct of Defendants Eaton and Werner was objectively unreasonable.
Under Fed. R. Evid. 704(a), an opinion is not objectionable merely because it embraces an
ultimate issue. Defendants argue that the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld
Judge Yandle’s decision to grant Defendants’ motion in limine to bar witnesses from
testifying about the defendants’ alleged “deliberate indifference” in the most recent trial
in this case. (Doc. 327 at 1 (citing Pittman v. Cnty. of Madison, Illinois, 970 F.3d 823, 830
(7th Cir. 2020))). However, the Court of Appeals expressly held that the testimony was
excludable not because it went to the ultimate issue (citing Fed. R. Evid. 704(a)) but
because “deliberate indifference” was not the correct legal standard. Any testimony
about “deliberate indifference” would therefore only confuse the jury, running afoul of
Fed. R. Evid. 403, Fed. R. Evid. 701, and Fed. R. Evid. 702. The Court of Appeals held that
Judge Yandle’s ruling that witnesses could not offer ultimate-issue opinions was wrong
under Fed. R. Evid. 704(a). Therefore, the Court will abide by the Court of Appeals’
express ruling on this issue and will not exclude otherwise admissible opinions simply
because they embrace the ultimate issues in the case. Therefore, Defendants’ motion in
limine regarding testimony on the ultimate issue (Doc. 328) is DENIED.
Defendants also argue that because none of the opinion witnesses testified to
objective reasonableness and were not asked in their depositions about objective
reasonableness, such testimony should be excluded at trial. (Doc. 327 at 2). Peculiar to
this matter, the Court has been informed that the testimony of experts will be presented
by deposition instead of by live witness testimony. So, the lack of opinion testimony
directed at objective reasonableness goes deeper than any failure to disclose existing
3

opinions; here, those opinions do not exist in the current state of the testimony that
Plaintiff plans to present to the jury. Because it is presently unclear to the Court where
this opinion testimony is to come from, Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Testimony on
Ultimate Issue (Doc. 325) is DENIED without prejudice. Further, Plaintiff is DIRECTED
to bring to the attention of Counsel and the Court his intention to offer opinion testimony
(whether lay or expert) regarding objective reasonableness prior to offering such
testimony during trial.
Defendants also seek an order prohibiting witness Bradly Banovz from testifying
about him or Pittman notifying jail officers other than Eaton and Werner about requests
for crisis intervention or threats of suicide. (Doc. 328 at 1-2). Plaintiff did not respond to
this aspect of the Defendants’ motion. Judge Yandle did not permit Banovz’s testimony
in this respect. (Doc. 271 at 3). The Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Yandle’s evidentiary
ruling. Pittman v. Cnty. of Madison, Illinois, 863 F.3d 734, 738 (7th Cir. 2017). And again, in
Pittman II. Pittman, 970 F.3d at 830. But apart from those determinations, as well as
questions of relevancy, Fed. R. Evid. 403, with its distinctive guard against the
introduction of unhelpful, confusing, prejudicial or misleading evidence, requires that
Banovz’s testimony that he or Pittman notified jail officers other than Eaton and Werner
be barred. Therefore, Defendants’ motion in limine as to Banovz’s testimony (Doc. 328) is
GRANTED. Accordingly, Banovz may not testify that he or Pittman notified jail officers
other than Eaton and Werner about requests for crisis intervention of threats of suicide.

4

III.

Defendants’ motion in limine regarding testimony of James Mulvaney (Doc.
329)
Defendants seek to exclude the testimony of witness James Mulvaney. Mulvaney

is a co-guardian of Plaintiff’s estate on behalf of First Financial Bank. During his
deposition, Mulvaney testified only about what he believes will happen with any money
awarded to Plaintiff in this case. Defendants argue that such testimony is completely
irrelevant and a waste of time. Plaintiff did not respond and offers nothing to suggest
that such testimony is relevant. Judge Yandle excluded the testimony of this witness on
these grounds in the prior two trials. (Docs. 177 & 272 at 4). The Court of Appeals affirmed
this ruling. Pittman, 863 F.3d at 738. Defendants’ motion in limine (Doc. 329) is
GRANTED.

IV.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine regarding throwing of human waste by Pittman
(Doc. 331)
Plaintiff seeks to exclude from trial evidence of Plaintiff having thrown feces and

urine during his time at the Madison County Jail. Plaintiff argues that the prejudicial
effect of such evidence outweighs any probative value it may have and should therefore
be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 403. Defendants did not respond. Such evidence would
have little, if any, probative value as to the issues that will come before the jury. To the
extent that there is some relevance to such evidence, it would be highly prejudicial to the
Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion in limine (Doc. 331) is GRANTED.

V.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine regarding criminal history of Plaintiff (Doc. 332).
5

Plaintiff seeks to exclude from trial evidence of his own criminal history, including
the charges for which he was being held at the time of the incident causing his injuries.
Plaintiff argues that he will not be a witness in this case, that there has been no conviction
on the charges existing at the time, and that all lost wage claims have been withdrawn.
Therefore, evidence of his criminal record has no relevance and would only be
prejudicial. Plaintiff does wish to inform the jury that he had not been convicted and was
a pre-trial detainee at the time of the incident. Defendants have not responded. Judge
Yandle in the prior trials of this case granted this motion without objection. (Docs. 160 &
271). The Court finds that evidence of Pittman’s criminal record is of little, if any,
relevance to the issues to be presented to the jury and would be highly prejudicial to
Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion in limine regarding his criminal history and prior
bad acts (Doc. 332) is GRANTED.

VI.

Plaintiff’s motion in limine regarding specific acts of violence (Doc. 333)
Plaintiff seeks to exclude from trial the testimony of Maynard Hill and any

testimony concerning specific acts of violence performed by Plaintiff. He argues that any
testimony about violence acts would serve only to prejudice the jury against him. He also
requests that any violent incidents incorporated into the testimony of any physician,
nurse, or expert be referred to as “impulsive acts” or “conduct issues.” Plaintiff’s motion
is less than clear and offers no basis for exclusion of evidence other than bare assertions
of prejudice. Accordingly, the Court will take this motion under advisement pending
argument by Counsel prior to the commencement of trial.
6

SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 5, 2022
/s David W. Dugan
______________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge

7