Fields v. City of Chicago
304 U.S. 144 (2018)
Rule of Law:
In a § 1983 excessive force case, evidence is admissible if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Evidence providing context for an officer's state of mind, such as the high-crime nature of a location, may be admissible, while evidence of a plaintiff's remote criminal history or expert testimony that usurps the jury's function is generally inadmissible.
Facts:
- On February 24, 2011, Erick Fields was in his garage removing a license plate from his car.
- Chicago police officers Petain Navez and Jose Lomeli entered Fields's garage.
- Officer Navez shot Fields in the abdomen.
- Fields alleged that the shooting was unprovoked.
- The officers contended that Fields lunged toward Officer Navez with a silver object, which they believed to be a gun but was later identified as a wrench.
- Fields alleged that after he was shot, other officers conspired to delay and obstruct his efforts to obtain medical treatment.
- Fields also alleged that unknown police officers later conducted a warrantless search of his home, leaving it in disarray.
Procedural Posture:
- Erick Fields filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Chicago and multiple police officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- Fields filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging excessive force, unlawful entry, conspiracy, and state law claims of battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and trespass.
- Fields voluntarily dismissed two of his original § 1983 claims with prejudice.
- Prior to the scheduled jury trial, both Plaintiff Fields and the Defendants filed motions in limine seeking to exclude certain categories of evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a § 1983 excessive force case, may a party introduce evidence of the plaintiff's prior criminal convictions, the high-crime nature of the area, or expert testimony on the reasonableness of the officer's actions, when such evidence risks creating unfair prejudice?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Rubén Castillo
No, evidence of a plaintiff's remote or irrelevant criminal history and expert testimony opining on the ultimate issue of reasonableness are generally inadmissible because the risk of unfair prejudice and jury confusion substantially outweighs any probative value. However, evidence regarding the character of the neighborhood is admissible because it is relevant to assessing whether an officer's actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. The court's primary function in ruling on these motions is to act as a gatekeeper under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Evidence of Fields's nearly 20-year-old attempted murder conviction is excluded under Rule 609(b) as its probative value does not substantially outweigh its severe prejudicial effect. Similarly, his drug possession conviction on the day of the incident is excluded under Rule 403 because it is irrelevant to the officers' use of force which occurred before the drugs were discovered. In contrast, evidence that the neighborhood was a 'high crime' area is relevant under Rule 401 to the objective reasonableness of the officers' conduct, as established in precedents like Flournoy v. City of Chicago. Expert testimony from R.T. Wyant (crime scene reconstruction) and Robert Johnson (police practices) is excluded under Rule 702 and Daubert because it would not assist the trier of fact and would usurp the jury’s function of weighing evidence and making credibility determinations about the reasonableness of the officers' actions.
Analysis:
This memorandum opinion serves as a practical guide to the application of the Federal Rules of Evidence in the context of a § 1983 excessive force claim. It illustrates the trial court's crucial gatekeeping role in balancing the admission of relevant contextual evidence against the exclusion of unfairly prejudicial character evidence. The rulings demonstrate a clear distinction between evidence that informs the jury about the circumstances confronting an officer (admissible) and evidence that merely attacks a plaintiff's character or usurps the jury's decision-making authority (inadmissible). This case reinforces the principle that an excessive force trial should focus on the objective reasonableness of the officer's conduct at the moment of the incident, not on the plaintiff's past or on expert opinions that offer legal conclusions.
