1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

JOSE LOPEZ, by his wife and next best ) Case No. 12 cv 5751 

friend, Sandra Cardiel, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Hon. John Robert Blakey,

v. ) Judge Presiding.

)

STEVAN VIDLJINOVIC, Star No. 4051, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. ) JURY DEMANDED

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 

 

Now comes the plaintiff, José Lopez, by and through his attorneys, and moves 

this Honorable Court to enter an order barring any reference to or mentioning

before the jury during the course of the trial of the above-captioned cause the 

following:

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine #1 

To Bar Use of Prior Felony Convictions and Any Arrests 

For Purposes of Minimizing Damages, For Attacking His Character, 

For Showing a Propensity to Commit Crimes, or Any Other Purpose 

 

1. José Lopez has a conviction in a 1989 El Paso County, Texas case for 

Felony Theft, a conviction in a 1999 El Paso County, Texas case for Possession of a 

Controlled Substance, a conviction in a 2002 El Paso County, Texas case for 

Manufacturer/Delivery of a Controlled Substance, a conviction in a 2002 Illinois 

case for Felony Possession of Firearm without Valid FOID, a conviction in a 2003

Illinois case for Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapon, and a conviction in a 2006 El 

Paso County, Texas case for Possession of a Controlled Substance.

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 165 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:3560
2

2. José Lopez was released from the penitentiary after serving his 

sentence on each of those convictions many years ago. 

3. José Lopez has arrests and convictions for traffic offenses and has had 

his driving privileges and his driving license suspended in the State of Illinois.

4. Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a) provides:

General Rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility 

of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted 

of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or 

established by public record during cross-examination but 

only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or 

imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under 

which the witness was convicted, and the court 

determines that the probative value of admitting this 

evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant, 

or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of 

the punishment.

5. Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) requires a judge to permit 

impeachment of a civil witness with evidence of prior felony convictions. Green v. 

Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.S. 504, 527, 109 S.Ct. 1981, 104 L.Ed.2d 557

(1989).

6. In Barber v. City of Chicago, 725 F.3d 702, 714 (7th Cir. 2013) the 

court reversed a verdict for the City holding:

“Evidence is unfairly prejudicial where ‘its admission 

makes it likely that the jury will be induced to decide the 

case on an improper basis, commonly an emotional one, 

rather than on the evidence presented.’ ” Presenting a § 

1983 plaintiff's criminal history to the jury presents a 

substantial risk that the jury will render a defense verdict 

based not on the evidence but on emotions or other 

improper motives, such as a belief that bad people should 

not be permitted to recover from honorable police officers.

(Internal citations omitted).

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 165 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:3561
3

7. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609, a prior conviction is not 

admissible if ten years have passed since the conviction or release from 

incarceration. Additionally, the conviction must either be a felony conviction or a 

misdemeanor conviction involving “dishonesty or a false statement.” Even if these 

criteria are met, the conviction is not admissible if “the judge determines that the 

probative value of the evidence of the crime is substantially outweighed by the 

danger of unfair prejudice.” People v. Montgomery, 47 Ill.2d 510, 516-517, 268 

N.E.2d 69567 A.L.R.3d 816 (1971).

8. Since José Lopez is both physically and mentally unable to speak and 

to give any testimony in this case, the prior felony convictions and the traffic arrests 

and convictions have no impact on his truthfulness. The prejudicial value of his 

convictions and arrests many years ago, do not bear on his credibility and far 

outweigh any probative value they could possibly have on the issues to be decided 

by the jury. 

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine #2 

To Bar Mention of PCP in José Lopez's System

1. The hospital records from Mount Sinai Hospital indicate the presence of 

phencyclidine (PCP) in José Lopez's system on July 22, 2011 when he arrived at the 

hospital.

2. The hospital records from Mount Sinai Hospital are silent as to the 

strength of the PCP in José's system on July 22, 2011.

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 165 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:3562
4

3. The half-life of PCP ranges from 7 to 46 hours. The half-life of PCP is 

estimated at 17.4 hours; however, half-lives of 1-4 days have been reported.1

4. Behavioral effects can vary by dosage of PCP. Low doses produce a 

numbness in the extremities and intoxication, characterized by staggering, 

unsteady gait, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and loss of balance. Moderate doses 

(5–10 mg intranasal, or 0.01–0.02 mg/kg intramuscular or intravenous) will produce 

analgesia and anesthesia. High doses may lead to convulsions.2 Users frequently do 

not know how much of the drug they are taking due to the tendency of the drug to 

be produced illegally in uncontrolled conditions.3

5. Studies by the Drug Abuse Warning Network in the 1970s show that 

media reports of PCP-induced violence are greatly exaggerated and that incidents of 

violence are unusual and often limited to individuals with reputations for 

aggression regardless of drug use.4

6. When they exerted force against José Lopez in order to get him into the 

ambulance to transport him to Mount Sinai Hospital, the Defendant Officers and 

paramedics did not know that the hospital records from Mount Sinai Hospital 

would later indicate the presence of phencyclidine (PCP) in José Lopez's system on 

July 22, 2011.

 

1

Phencyclidine Toxicity, Updated: Apr 20, 2015, Author: Patrick L West, MD; Chief Editor: Asim Tarabar, MD.

2

Diaz, Jaime. How Drugs Influence Behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1996.

3

Chudler, Eric H. "Neuroscience for Kids – PCP". Neuroscience for Kids. Retrieved 2011-01-26.

4

Inciardi, James A. (1992). The War on Drugs II. Mayfield Publishing Company. ISBN 1-55934-016-9.

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 165 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:3563
5

7. In Sherrod v. Berry, 856 F.2d 802, 804-5 (7th Cir.1988), the Seventh Circuit Court of 

Appeals indicated:

When a jury measures the objective reasonableness of an officer's 

action, it must stand in his shoes and judge the reasonableness of 

his actions based upon the information he possessed and the 

judgment he exercised in responding to that situation.

8. In Jackson v. City of Joliet, 715 F.2d 1200 (7th Cir.1983), the court noted that if a 

police officer begins to rescue someone, he must complete the rescue in a non-negligent fashion 

even though he had no duty of rescue in the first place. It is respectfully suggested that the use of 

a Taser to get José Lopez into the ambulance for transportation to Mount Sinai Hospital ought to 

be considered much more than "the completion of the rescue in a non-negligent fashion".

9. In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 399, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989), 

the Supreme Court indicated that the factors to consider in making a determination of whether 

the amount of force used to effectuate a seizure is reasonable include the severity of the crime at 

issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and 

whether he actively is resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

10. In Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758, 773 (7th Cir 2000), the Seventh Circuit 

reaffirmed that the facts to be considered are: a) need for force, b) the relationship between need 

for force and the amount used, c) the severity of the crime at issue, d) whether the arrestee posed 

an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, e) and whether the arrestee was 

actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

11. Two years later in McDonald v. Haskins, 966 F.2d 292, 292–93 (7th Cir.1992), the 

Seventh Circuit indicated that other factors include whether the individual was under arrest or 

suspected of committing a crime, was armed, or was interfering or attempting to interfere with 

the officer's execution of his or her duties. In the end, the excessive force inquiry “looks to 

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 165 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:3564
6

whether the force used to seize the suspect was excessive in relation to the danger he posed—to 

the community or to the arresting officers—if left unattended.”

12. All Defendants in this case admit under oath that José Lopez was not under arrest and 

was not fleeing apprehension when he was tased. 

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine #3 

To Bar Use of Clear or Leads System 

To Investigate Backgrounds of Jurors 

 

1. Such police databases “are restricted to law enforcement purposes only”

pursuant to administrative regulations and Illinois criminal statute.

2. To allow criminal background checks on potential jurors during voir dire

would be violative of those administrative regulations and the Illinois criminal 

statute.

3. The use of such police database systems would give Defendants an unfair 

advantage in this case and make information available to them that will not be 

available to José Lopez as the potential jurors are questioned during voir dire.

4. If allowed to do so during voir dire, Defendants may run background 

checks only for jurors of a certain race or ethnicity, and thus violate the principles 

set forth in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). See, also Harris v. Hardy, 680 

F.3d 942, 949 (7th Cir. 2012)(explaining three-step inquiry for Batson objections).

5. In Hill v. City of Chicago, 06 C 6772, (N.D.Ill.), Judge Amy St. Eve granted 

a motion in limine barring Defendants from using the Chicago Police Department 

CLEAR system or the Illinois State Police LEADS system to investigate the 

backgrounds of jurors.

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 165 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:3565
7

6. In Padilla v. City of Chicago, 06 C 5462, Doc #677, (N.D.Ill), Judge Milton 

I. Shadur granted the motion in limine regarding the "improper use of police 

resources", and continued defendants' requests to conduct such background checks 

of potential jurors until "the customary voir dire conference that the court convenes 

shortly before trial." Id., at p. 11. 

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine #4 

To Bar Any Argument That Appeals 

To the Jurors' Pecuniary Interests as Taxpayers 

 

1. The compensatory damages sought for José Lopez in this case are 

substantial because of the medical bills and nursing home bills already sustained.

2. The compensatory damages that Volvo regularly are sought to maintain 

him for the rest of his life are also very substantial.

3. The punitive damages sought for José Lopez in this cause will be 

substantial and any appeal to the jurors' pecuniary interest as taxpayers will be 

liable for the payment of these damages is inappropriate and will be prejudicial to a 

fair consideration of plaintiffs cause.

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine #5 

Bar Mention of Lopez Raising 2 Families 

And/or Using 2 Aliases 

For Purposes of Minimizing Damages, For Attacking His Character, 

For Showing a Propensity to Commit Crimes, or Any Other Purpose 

 

1. On the date of his tasing, José Lopez lived at 2 separate homes, one in 

Chicago and the other in Summit, Illinois.

2. At the Chicago home, José Lopez lived with Guadalupe Guzman and their 

2 children, Nahum and Tais.

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 165 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:3566
8

3. At the Summit home, José Lopez lived with Sandra Cardiel and their 2 

children, John and Giselle.

4. José Lopez is lawfully married to Sandra Cardiel.

5. Allowing the defense to cross-examine Guadalupe Guzman and/or Sandra 

Cardiel on the fact that José Lopez was raising children with each of them in 

separate households is highly prejudicial and will impact the jury's impression of 

the character of each of them.

6. Evidence in this case reveals that Guadalupe Guzman and Sandra Cardiel

had no knowledge of each other until a chance "run in" at a local shopping center.

7. Making reference to or mention of the character of José Lopez, Guadalupe 

Guzman, and/or Sandra Cardiel in raising two separate families has absolutely 

nothing to do with the issues in this cause.

8. This case concerns the use of the Taser and force by the Defendants to get 

José Lopez into the ambulance so that he could be transported to Mount Sinai 

Hospital.

9. In Thompson v. City of Chicago, 722 F.3d 963 (7th Cir.2013). The court 

noted: 

“The amount of prejudice that is acceptable varies 

according to the amount of probative value the evidence 

possesses. ‘[T]he more probative the evidence, the more 

the court will tolerate some risk of prejudice, while less 

probative evidence will be received only if the risk of 

prejudice is more remote.’ ” (Internal citations omitted). 

Id., at 971.

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 165 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:3567
9

10. In Thompson, plaintiff contended that the [trial] court allowed the defense 

to cross-examine him on his use of aliases in a manner that permitted an obvious 

and prejudicial inference about his history of arrests." Id., at 976.

11. The Thompson court explained that there was "an undue risk that the 

jury will decide the case on an improper basis—usually, though not always, because 

the proffered evidence appeals to emotion more than fact or reason. Id., at 976

12. After the trial court permitted defense counsel to cross-examine 

Thompson regarding 12 specific occasions on which he used a false name “during an 

important event in your life”, the Court of Appeals held:

Thompson strenuously objected at trial and argues on 

appeal that this “compromise” was highly prejudicial, and 

rightly so. Id., at 977.

13. "Under Rule 608(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court may 

permit cross-examination on specific instances of conduct if probative of the 

witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness." Id., at 977.

14. José Lopez will not be testifying during this trial and his character for 

truthfulness or untruthfulness will not be tested in any way.

15. On the very best of days, and when he can keep his concentration focused, 

José Lopez is only able to respond to direct questions by blinking his eyes to 

indicate yes or no in response.

16. At the recent conference among counsel for the respective parties, counsel 

for the defense indicated that they would be filing a motion in limine to bar the 

actual physical appearance of José Lopez at the trial of the cause.

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 165 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:3568
10

17. Plaintiff's counsel agrees that it might be an appearance of grandstanding 

and over dramatization to bring José Lopez into the court room and before the jury 

to elicit testimony that might not even be possible and therefore has agreed that 

José Lopez will not be brought before the jury during the trial of this cause.

18. Although Guadalupe Guzman and/or Sandra Cardiel will testify, their 

character in raising two separate families has absolutely nothing to do with the 

issues in this cause, i.e. the use of force by the defendants get José Lopez into the 

ambulance.

19. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, evidence that Jose Lopez was 

raising two Families and/or using two Aliases should be excluded because its 

probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice or causes 

a substantial concern about confusion of the issues, waste of time, delay, or 

cumulative evidence.

20. Similarly, allowing the Defendants to cross-examine Guadalupe Guzman 

and/or Sandra Cardiel about the fact that José Lopez was raising children with each 

of them in separate households is highly prejudicial and will unfairly impact the 

jury's impression of the character of each of them.

Plaintiff's Motion In Limine #6 

To Bar Defendants from Claiming 

Inability to Pay Punitive Damages 

1. Plaintiff will be seeking substantial punitive damages against the 

Defendant Police Officers and Paramedics, jointly and severally.

2. If any of the Defendants or their attorneys contend before the jury that 

their finances are such that they have an inability to pay punitive damages, 

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 165 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:3569
11

plaintiff's counsel should be allowed to argue to the jury that the City of Chicago 

will pay any compensatory damages awarded to José Lopez from any of the

Defendants. In Obrycka v. City of Chicago and Anthony, Abbate, Jr., Case No. 

07 C 2372, Doc. #: 561, p.3, Judge St. Eve ruled:

If Defendants open the door by presenting evidence or 

argument of Abbate’s financial condition, however, 

evidence of indemnification may be permissible. See 

[Lawson v. Trowbridge, 153 F.3d 368, 379 (7th Cir. 1998)];

Christmas v. City of Chicago, 691 F.Supp.2d 811, 819 

(N.D. Ill. 2010). As such, if Defendant offers evidence of 

Abbate’s financial condition, Obrycka must front this 

issue with the Court outside of the presence of the jury. 

See Kemezy v. Peters, 79 F.3d 33, 37 (7th Cir. 1996) 

(“defendant should not be allowed to plead poverty if his 

employer or an insurance company is going to pick up the 

tab”). The Court therefore grants Defendant’s in limine

motion in this respect without prejudice.

Plaintiff's Motion In Limine #7 

To Bar Defendants from Arguing That 

José Lopez Was Not a Good Role Model for His Children 

For Purposes of Minimizing Damages, For Attacking His Character, 

For Showing a Propensity to Commit Crimes, or Any Other Purpose 

 

 1. Although José Lopez has several felony convictions years ago and did not 

have a valid driver's license at the time Defendants tased him, causing his brain 

hemorrhaging and resulting brain injuries, admission of testimony that José Lopez 

was not a good role model for his children ought not be admitted for any purpose.

2. Defendants seek to admit such evidence as bearing on compensatory 

damages for the support of José Lopez's wife, Sandra Cardiel and his four children.

3. There is no question that prior to the tasing, José Lopez was raising his 

wife and 4 children.

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 165 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:3570
12

4. In Cobige v. City of Chicago, Illinois, 651 F.3d 780, (7th Cir.2011), the 

court affirmed an award of punitive damages for plaintiff, but remanded the case 

for a new trial on compensatory damages only. Justice Easterbrook wrote:

Chicago wanted to undermine Maurice's rosy view of the 

mother-son relationship by introducing evidence that 

Patricia was a drug addict who had been in trouble with 

the law for much of her adult life and had spent multiyear stretches in prison. The district court admitted 

evidence that Cobige had been convicted once but 

excluded older sentences and did not permit the 

introduction of evidence about Cobige's drug addiction 

and arrest record.

Thus the jury did not learn that in 1998 Cobige was 

sentenced to four years' imprisonment for two drug 

offenses and had scarcely been released when she was 

arrested again and convicted in 2001 for another drug 

crime, for which the sentence was three years. When she 

died in 2006, she was in the lockup following arrest on yet 

another drug charge. The excluded evidence would have 

undermined the favorable picture that Maurice Cobige 

painted of his mother's character and would have allowed 

defense counsel to ask just what kind of “role model” she 

could have been....

Chicago did not propose to use evidence of one crime to 

establish propensity to commit another. It proffered the 

evidence because it is relevant to how much loss Cobige's 

estate and son suffered by her death.

Cobige's character and life prospects were put in question 

by her son's testimony. Just as Maurice Cobige was 

entitled to paint a favorable view of his mother's ability to 

give sage advice and emotional support—he testified that 

“she taught me mostly everything I know. Everything she 

knew she tried to instill in me.”—Chicago was entitled to 

introduce evidence suggesting that Patricia Cobige *785 

was not likely to assist others or to have enjoyed life to 

the extent that her son narrated. Illinois law makes 

surviving relatives' emotional loss and familial ties 

relevant to damages.

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 165 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:3571
13

Id., at 784.

5. In contrast, José Lopez has not been convicted in many years and he has 

not been in jail for many years. 

6. José Lopez had served those sentences and his debt to society many years 

before his interactions with the police, paramedics, and firefighters in this case.

6. José Lopez had been the support for his wife and 4 children for many years 

before he was tased on July 22, 2011.

7. José Lopez had been available to be and was a role model for his children.

8. José Lopez was having a positive influence on his children's lives:

a. His eldest son, John Nevarez is now 21 years of age, and is a 

 Corporal in the United States Marine Corps;

b. His eldest daughter, Giselle Nevarez is now 19 years of age and is 

 enrolled as a full-time student at Lewis University in Romeoville, 

 Illinois, majoring in criminal justice. Giselle is also a peer minister 

 in Lewis University Ministry and working as a part-time manager 

 assistant in retail in order to pay her way through school; and

 c. His youngest son, Nahum is now 13 years old and in 7th grade, and 

 his youngest daughter, Tais is now 11 years old and in 5th grade and 

 both are going through family and school counseling because of the 

 impact of the loss of the society and guidance of their father.

9. As Justice Easterbrook noted Fed.R.Evid. 403, 404(b) and 609(b) "permit[ ]

a judge to exclude relevant evidence 'if its probative value is substantially 

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice'". Cobige, at 784.

10. The probative value of mentioning these convictions from long ago that 

have nothing to do with the kind of life José Lopez was providing his wife and 

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 165 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:3572
14

children at and prior to the time of the tasing by the police is substantially 

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff moves this Honorable Court to enter an order

barring any reference to or mentioning before the jury during the course of the trial 

of the above captioned cause the foregoing matters discussed in this plaintiff's 

Motions in limine.

Respectfully submitted,

S/ John P. DeRose

John P. DeRose

One of Plaintiff's Lawyers

John P. DeRose & Associates

15 Spinning Wheel Road

Suite 428

Hinsdale, Illinois 60521

(630) 920-1111 Office 

(630) 920-1170 Fax

john@johnderoselaw.com

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I, John DeRose, hereby certify that the foregoing Plaintiff's Motions in Limine was filed 

with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois via the 

electronic filing system on January 24, 2017 and the copy will be served on Counsel of Record 

via the electronic filing system.

S/ John P. DeRose

John P. DeRose

One of Plaintiff's Lawyers

John P. DeRose & Associates

15 Spinning Wheel Road

Suite 428

Hinsdale, Illinois 60521

(630) 920-1111 Office 

(630) 920-1170 Fax

john@johnderoselaw.com

Case: 1:12-cv-05751 Document #: 165 Filed: 01/24/17 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:3573