Wilson v. Williams
182 F.3d 562 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A definitive, unconditional pretrial ruling on a motion in limine is sufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review without a contemporaneous objection at trial. However, this preservation applies only to the specific grounds raised in the motion and does not extend to new or different misuses of the evidence at trial, which require a separate, timely objection.
Facts:
- Jackie Wilson, an inmate at Cook County Jail, was serving a life sentence without parole.
- Wilson was convicted under the felony-murder doctrine as an accomplice to his brother, who shot and killed two police officers.
- Wilson filed a lawsuit against James Williams, a jail guard, alleging Williams attacked him without provocation.
- Williams countered that Wilson was the aggressor and that he used only reasonable force in self-defense.
Procedural Posture:
- Jackie Wilson filed a § 1983 suit against James Williams in federal district court.
- Prior to his second jury trial, Wilson filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence that his murder conviction was for killing a police officer.
- The district court judge denied the motion with a definitive ruling.
- At trial, Wilson's counsel did not object when Williams's counsel repeatedly referred to Wilson as a 'cop killer.'
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Williams.
- Wilson appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit initially affirmed the verdict, holding that Wilson had forfeited his objection by failing to renew it at trial.
- The Seventh Circuit then granted a petition to rehear the case en banc to resolve conflicting precedents on the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party forfeit an evidentiary issue for appeal by failing to object at trial, if the court has already made a definitive pretrial ruling denying that party's motion in limine to exclude the evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Easterbrook
No, a definitive pretrial ruling on a motion in limine is sufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review without a contemporaneous objection at trial. Requiring repetition at trial is inefficient, may annoy the judge, and prevents parties from adapting their trial strategies based on the ruling. However, this preservation is limited to the specific arguments presented in the motion. In this case, Wilson's motion addressed the admissibility of his victim's identity, but not the defense's subsequent inflammatory misuse of that information by repeatedly calling him a 'cop killer.' Wilson's failure to object to this specific misuse at trial resulted in forfeiture of that argument. While the district court's initial denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion under Old Chief, the error was harmless because the victim's identity would have been revealed anyway through a witness testifying about Wilson's own statement. The unpreserved issue of the evidence's misuse does not rise to the level of plain error.
Dissenting - Wood
I agree with the majority's new rule regarding motions in limine but dissent from its application and the case's outcome. Defense counsel's incessant and blatant misuse of the 'cop killer' label was so extreme that it constituted plain error that seriously affected the fairness of the trial, requiring reversal even without a contemporaneous objection. Furthermore, the district court's initial error in denying the motion in limine was not harmless. Had the motion been properly granted, Wilson's counsel would have had grounds to object to the portion of Officer Cavallone's testimony that revealed the victim's identity, and the door would never have been opened to the defense's inflammatory 'mantra.'
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Manion
I concur in the judgment to affirm but dissent from the creation of the new rule for motions in limine. The distinction between a 'definitive' and 'conditional' ruling is unworkable and will inevitably lead to satellite litigation over its interpretation. The previous bright-line rule requiring an objection at trial was more efficient, straightforward, and fair. Prudent counsel will still need to renew all objections at trial to be safe, rendering the new presumptive rule largely ineffective.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Coffey
I concur in the judgment because Wilson waived his objection by failing to object at trial and by preemptively using the evidence himself. I dissent from the majority's new rule regarding motions in limine. Supreme Court precedent in Luce v. United States establishes that in limine rulings are inherently advisory and speculative, and a trial judge must remain free to alter the ruling as the case unfolds. The established rule in this and a majority of other circuits, requiring a renewed objection at trial, is correct, practical, and should not be abandoned.
Analysis:
This en banc decision establishes a significant new procedural rule in the Seventh Circuit, resolving an internal circuit split and aligning its practice with a proposed amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 103. The ruling provides clarity for litigators, allowing them to rely on definitive pretrial evidentiary rulings without making redundant objections, thereby streamlining trials and enabling better strategic planning. Critically, however, the decision carves out a major limitation: the preserved objection is only as broad as the motion itself. This serves as a caution to trial lawyers that they must remain vigilant and object to unforeseen or improper uses of evidence at trial, as a pretrial motion on general admissibility will not preserve an objection to a specific misuse.
Unlock the full brief for Wilson v. Williams