## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 11

- 3389 S HAQU IL LE G RIFFIN , Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . R ICH ARD B ELL, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09- cv-06549

—Arlande r Keys,Magis trate Judge

.
A RGUED J UN E 1, 2012

— D ECIDED S EP TE MBE R 4, 2012

Befo re F LA UM, R OV NERa nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Shaquil l e Gri ffi n, a Ch i cago p u b li c hi gh schoo l student, sued Ric hard Bel l, a Ch i c a g o p o l i c e o f fi c e r wh o wa s wo r k i nga s a s e c ur i ty supe rv i soratGri f fi n’s scho ol, f orusi ng exce ssi ve f or ce in arr es tin g G riffin

. See 42 U
. S. C. § 1983

. A j ury rej ecte d G riffin ’s c laim an d fou n d in fa vo r of t h e o f f i c er . G riffin se ek s a ne w t r i al, as se r ting th at th e di st r i ct co urt conduct ed a fl awe d j ur y s electio n pr o ce ss a nd e r r ed i n e xc l u d i n gc e r t a i n e v i d e n c e . We a ffi r m.2 N o. 11

- 3389

The r e c o r d do e s n o tr e v e a l wh e t h e r th e u n i f o r m vi o l at i on 1 w as the sole rea son tha t G riffin w as sent h om e . A cco rd ing to testim on y at trial, G ri ffi n w as sent h om e ap p ro xim ately thirty m inu tes after arriv ing at the sch oo l. T h e o t h e r se c u r i t y o ffi c e r w a s b u sy r e st r a i n i n g G r i ffi n ’s 2 bro t he r an d tw o fri en ds who t ri ed t o j oi n the s c uf fl e, an d t hus was una bl e t o a s s i s tOf fi c er Bel l i n a rr es t i ng Gri f fi n. I. O n N ov em ber1, 20 07, Gri ffi n, a f re shm an atCor l i ss H igh Sc h oo l, ar riv ed atsc h oo l w ea rin g b lu e jean s, a j acke t a nd a base bal l cap . C or l i ss has a dres s co de that r e qu i r e s s t ud e nt s t o we a r wh i t e s hi r t s a nd b l a c kp ants and so Gri f fi n w as tol d to go hom e. A ccor din g to 1 O ffice r B e l l , a s h e a c c om p an ied G riffin ou t o f th e s c h oo l, he as ked Gri f fi n to r em ove hi s hat

. W h en G ri ffi n did not com ply, Offi cerBel l r em oved G ri ffi n’s cap, and handed it t o h im . G riffin p u t t h e h at ba c k on , an d O ffice r B ell re m ov ed it ag ai n, th is t im e t ellin g G riffin th at h e w ou ld re turn the hat w hen theyr eached the exi t. A t that p oin t, G riffin st ru c k O ffice r B e l l i n t h e fa c e w ith h is left h an d . W h en G riffin at te m p te d to h it O ffice r B ell a secon d tim e, a secon d secu rity officer grab b ed Griffin’s ar m. Offi c e r Be l l the n t o l d Gr i ffi n tha t he wa s under ar re st, an d m an ag ed to ge t on e ha n d c u ff on G riffin b efo re G r iffin be ga n to st ru gg le w ith B ell. T h e s tr u gg le 2 conti nued f orapproxi m ate l y t w enty orthi rty m i nutes before O fficer B ell m an aged to get th e sec o n d h a nd cu ff on Gri ffi n. Other pol i ce o ffi cer s then l ed hi m away. At t r i al, the s ec o nd s ec ur i tyo ffi ce r, a t ea ch er - l ibr ar i an,N o. 11

- 3389 3

A t hi s dep o sit io n , G ri f fin t es ti fie d that he w as in unif orm 3 w hen he arr ived at th e school. Aft er r eviewing a shortvideo ofthe i nc i dentpr i or t o the t ri al, Gri f fi n c ha nge d hi s s t or y. W e addre s s the vi deo i n f ra . an d a third sec urity gu ar d c o r roborated Offi cer B ell ’s ver si on o fthe eve nts. Gr i f fi n t o l d t he ju r y a v er y di ff er en t st o r y . At t r i al, he ackno w l edged thathe w as not i n com pli ance with the dr es s c o de t ha t da y . He t o l d the j ur y tha t he was 3 h eaded to hi s l ock erto ge t hi s uni f or m wh en Of fi cerB ell t o l d h i m t o r e mo v e h i s h a t
. G r i ffi n t e s t i fi e d th a th e c o mpli ed w i th the o f fi c er ’s requestbut that the o ffi certhen gr ab b ed h im from be h in d an d th re w h im int o a w all. Ac c o r d i n gt o G r i f fi n, th e o ffi c e r th e n h e a d

-b u t t e d h i m, knock i ng hi m to the fl oo r i n the process . T h e offi cer th enha ndcu f f ed him a nd dr ag g ed hi m a cr o ss the fl oor b y the ha ndcu ff s. Af te r Gr i ffi n mana g ed to s ta nd up a g a i n, th e o f fi c e r k n o c k e d h i m t o th e fl o o r a s ec o nd tim e. O n c e o n t h e floo r, G riffin to ld th e jur y, O ffice r B ell pound ed hi s hea d i nto the fl oo r w heneverGri ffi n tr i ed to r ai se hi s he ad, r es ul tingi n b r ui se s to hi s f ac e. Gr i ff in’s m o t h e r to ld th e jur y t h at h e s u ffer ed an inju ry to h is l i p, “ ca r petb ur n o n h is fa ce , ” an d b r ui se s al l a r o und hi s h e a d. Be f o r e t r i a l, Bel l m ove d i n l i m i neto ex c lu d e fro m ev idence a shor t v i deo o fparto fthe i nci dent. The twom i n u t e v i d e o wa s r e c o r d e d b y He a th e r B r o wn, a fr i e nd o fG r i f fi n ’ s , wi t h e i th e r a c e l l p h o n e o r c a mc o r der

. B r o wn e- m ai l ed the vi deo t o Gri ffi n’s l aw yer, an d t h e v i deo4 N o. 11

- 3389

was made av ai l ab l e to Bel l ne arthe b eg i nni ngo fthe law sui t. F o ur y ea r s pas se d b etwee n the i nc i den t an d t h e t r i a l, a n d Gr i f fi n a p p a r e n t l y l o s tt r a c ko fB r o wn dur i ngtha t ti m e. Be l l c o nt en ded tha t, wi th o utpr es en ting Br o wn a s a wi t n e s s , th e p l a i n t i ff c o u l d n o t e s t a b l i sh a proper f oundati on f or the vi deo. Bel l al so ar gued th a t t h e v id eo w as co n fu sin g, m isle ad in g a n d u n fair ly pr ej udi ci alb ec au se i t sh o wed o nl y a s m al l pa r t o fthe i nci dent and i ncl ud ed gaps w here the ca m er a was not po i nt ed at th e st r ug g l e be twe enGr i ffi n a nd Be l l

. W i th o ut Br o wn as a wi tn es s, Be l l c o nt en ded, there w as no way t o de te r m i ne whethe r the v i deo was e di te d o r why cer tai n parts of the str uggl e w er e not vi sible . For ex ampl e, the v i deo di d no t sh o w the b egi nni ngo fthe alt er c at ion , w h en G riffin at ta c ke d B ell, b u t sh ow e d on ly par ts o fthe s cuffl e th ata ppea r ed f av o r ab l e to Gr i ffi n. Atthe sta r to fthe v i de o , Gr i ffi n i s we a r i ngo ne h a nd

cuffwith the se cond d an gl i ng fro m hi s wri st. Bel l al so obj ecte d to the a dm i ssi on o fst i l l pi cture s e xtra cted f ro m the vi deo f orsi m ilar reas ons, al though Bel l ag re ed th at certa in pictu res c ou ld be u sed to refresh a w itness ’s r ec o l l ec ti o n s o l o nga s th eywer e not d ispl ay ed to the j ur y . The c o ur t ul ti m at el y de ci d ed t o e xc l ude the vi deo, exce rpts f ro m the vi deo, and sti l l photo s cr eat ed f ro m the vi deo be cause the vi deo la cked a pro per f oundati on, sho w ed onl y par t o fthe i nci d en t, and w as u n fair ly p rej u d icia l. A fterGri f fi n tes ti fi ed that he was not i n uni f or m wh en h e ar rived at schoo l, Bel l ’ s a tto rneyi m peached hi m with hi s deposi ti on tes tim ony to the c ontr ar y. Gri ffi n’s l aw yer w i sh ed to acc ount f orthe i nconsi ste ncy t o the j ury byN o. 11

- 3389 5 havi ng hi s cl i ent e xplai n t h at he had vi ew ed the vi deo bef or e t est i fyi ng attr i aland that the v i deo r efr es hed hi s r eco l l ection t hat he w as w ear i ng j eans and not bl ack pan ts o n the da y o fthe inc i den t. I n k eep ing w i ththe r ul i nge xc l udi ngthe v i deo a nd a l l e xc er pts fr om it, th e cour t r ul ed th atGr i ffi n’ s l awy erc o ul d no t as khi s cl i en t w hy hi s t est i m ony w as diff er ent at tr ial than i t was at hi s de po s i ti on “i fh i s a ns we r wi l l b e tha th e v i e we d a vi deo. ” Tr

. at21 0. Gri ffi n now appeal s th e j ury’ s v er dict in fav or of O ffice r B ell.

II. O n ap p e al, Griffin com p lai ns that the d istri ct cou rt appli ed an er ro n eo u s s tandard i n denyi ng chal l enges f orcause to pro specti ve j uror s. H e also c ontend s that the c ourterr ed i n re fusi ng to al l ow hi m to use sti l l photo

gr ap h s e x t r a c te d from th e v id eo in h is c as e-in -c h ief, in hi s cr o ss - ex ami na ti o n o f defen se wi tn es se s, and i n expla i ni ng to th e j ury how he r efre shed hi s r eco l l ecti on be f o r e te st i fy i nga t tr i al

. F i na l l y , he mai nt ains tha t th e c ou rterr ed in a llow i n g O ffice r B ell to te st ify th at h is acti ons i n ar re sti ng Gri ffi n com pli ed w i th Chic ago Pol i ce Dep ar tm ent rul es and regula ti ons re gar ding ar re sts
.
A. The dis tr i ct c ourtr ej ecte d ever y c hal l enge f orcause that Gr iffi n ra i sed duri ng the j ury sel ecti on pro cess . Gri f fi n appeal s the co urt’ s d ec isi on i n thr ee oftho se i ns ta nc es : j ur o r s S us anM ah o ne y , Na di ne M aa m ar i, a nd6 N o. 11

- 3389

G ri f fin’ s lawy er i nit ial ly om it ted fro m his requi red short 4 ap p en d ix the d istrict cou rt’ s ora l rulin g s on the ju ro r issues. S eeC ircu it R u le 3 0 (b ). A fter the ap p ellee b ro u g ht th is om iss i on t o the c our t ’ s at t en t i on, Gri f fi n m oved to s uppl em en t t he appe nd ix. Althoughwe i ni t i al l y gr ant ed Gr i f fi n’ s m ot i on, after rec ei vi n g the appell ee’ s m oti on to re consi der, w e vacate d the app el lant ’ s corre ct ed b ri ef, reins tat ed his ori ginal defic ie nt fil ing, and allowed him to fil e the om it ted ruli ngs as a s uppl em en tt o h i s ope ni ng br i ef

. R. 32
. W e defer re d rul i ng on the trea tm en t of the om itte d m ater ials so tha t the m erits p a n e l c o u l d c o n si d e r th e is su e . W e n o w g r a n tP l a i n t i ff’s M ot i ont o Co r r e c tI na dve r t e ntOm i s s i on s i n hi s S hort Ap

p en d ix. R
. 23 . F or e ach o f the juro rs cha lleng ed , G riffin cited to t h e t r a n sc r i p ta n d in a fe w in st a n c e s q u o t e d th e d i st r i c tc o u r t ’s ru l i ng i n the body o fhi s br i ef, s uppor t i ng h i s cl ai m thatthe om issions from the sh or t ap p en d ix w ere in f act in ad v erten t. Tr ac eyCa r el

. I n e ac h i ns ta nce, G ri ffi n a r g ue s th atthe j ur o r i ndi ca te d tha t sh e woul d g i ve mor e cr edi t to the testim ony of a p oli ce officer th an to that of a fourteen -yearol d student. W e r evi ew the dist ri c t co urt’ s r ulings o n j ur o r c ha l l en g es f o r abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. U ni t e d States v. 4 Fletc her, 63 4 F
. 3d 395, 40 9 ( 7th Ci r.), cert. denied , 13 2 S

. Ct. 3 9 8 ( 2 0 1 1 ) ( b e c a us e o f the di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s a b i l i ty to evalu ate j uror c r e d ibi li ty d uring voir d ire, w e acco rd gr eatd efe re n c e t o the c ourt ’ s r uling o n a c hal l enge f or cause ); U nit e d S t at e s v. H i cks , 63 5 F
. 3d 1063 , 10 67- 68 (7t h C ir. 20 11 ) (sa m e); U nite d State s v. Scott, 26 7 F
. 3d 729, 74 3 (7 t h C ir. 20 01 ) (th e p ro c es s o f em p an elin g a j u ry is l e ftt o th e s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o fth e t r i a l j u dge , a n d we w i l l notd isturb the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r ulings absent an ab us e o fdi sc r et i o n)

. M o r eo ve r, we wi l l o ver tu r n aN o. 11

- 3389 7

ver dictbas ed on the di str i ct c ou rt ’ s r efusalto r em ove a j ur o r o nl y i fthe pa r tycha l l en g i ngthe r ul i ngc ande m o nst ra te p rej u d ice
. Fletc her, 63 4 F
. 3d at 409.

1. G riffi n e x er c ise d on e o f h is t h re e p er em p to ry ch allen ge s to elim in at e j u ro r M ah on ey fro m th e j u ry p o o l, an d so sh e w as n ot p ar t o f th e p an el t h at u ltim at ely deci ded the case . Because M ahoney did not p ar tici pate i n de ci di ngthe c as e, G rif fi n c an no t demons tr at e pr ej udice fro m the dist ri c t c ourt ’ s r efusalto r em ove herf or c au se . Fletc her, 6 3 4 F
. 3 d a t4 0 9 ( n o pr ej u d i c e s h o wn when a l l e g e d l y b i a s e d j u r o r s e r v e d a s a n a l t e r n a t e wh o di d no t par ti ci pat e i n de l iberat i o ns o r a ss i sti n de ci di ng th e case). “[O ]ur focus at th is stage m us t be on the im p arti al i tyo fthe j ur y tha t ac tu al l y s at, no t o n [ the juror ] who wa s s t r uc k

. ” U nite d State s v. Lott, 44 2 F
. 3d 981, 98 4 ( 7th C ir. 20 06 ). See a lso U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ar t i nez- Sal azar, 52 8 U .S. 3 04 , 3 13 (20 00 ); R o s s v . Ok l a h o ma , 487 U
. S. 81, 86 (1988). B ec au se M ahoney was not a m em bero fthe j ury that deci ded the case , th e c ourt ’ s r efusalto excuse herf or cause coul d not hav e pr ej ud i ced Gri ffin u n less the l oss o fth a tp e r e mp t o r y c h a l l e n g e s o me h o w h a r me d h i m. Bu t Gri f fi n did notm ak e an y a rg um ent in the dist ri ct co ur t o r i n h i s o pen i ngb r i efo n a ppea l r egardingthe l oss o fa pere m p to rychal l enge. A l though Gri ffi n used al l thr ee ofhi s a vail abl e per em ptor y c hal l enges , he ne ver claim ed that he w as w ron g ly d ep rived of the u se of a p erem ptor y c hal l enge by the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r efusalto re m ov e M ah on ey for c au se . M or e p re c ise ly, G riffin d id8 N o. 11

- 3389

no t r ai se thi s ar g um en t unt i l hi s rep l y b r i ef, a nd a r g um ents ra i sed f ort h e firs t ti m e i n a r epl y b ri efar e deem ed w aiv ed

. M e ndez v. Per l a D ental , 64 6 F

. 3d 420, 42 3- 24 (7t h C ir. 20 11 ); U nite d State s v. Wes cott, 576 F. 3d 34 7, 354 (7t h C i r . 2 0 0 9 ), cert. denied , 130 S. Ct

. 1546 (2010). W e there f or e wil l notco nsi der that c l ai m o n the m er i ts.

2. Gri f fi n’s next chall enge f orcause was to j uror Car el

. W he n the c o ur t as k ed Car elwhats he thought i n gene ra l o fpol i ce o ffi cer s, Care l r esponded that they have a “ re al l y t ough j ob, ” a nd a “danger ous j ob. ” Tr. at 84- 85 . Th e c ou rtth e n a sk ed , “D o yo u be liev e t h at if an ind ivi du ali s a v i cti m o fexce ssi ve f or ce which c auses i nj uri es, thata perso n shoul d be able to sue the pol i ce offi cer f or the excess i ve f or ce i fthe evi dence shows that ?” C ar el re p lie d , “I gu es s if th e e vid en c e s h ow s t h at, yea h .” Tr. at85
. The co urt ask ed Carelwh ethershe w oul d be ab l e to s us p en d he r j udg m en t an d no t m ak e up he r min d unti l she hear d ever ythi ng, and wh ethershe w oul d be ab l e to r emai n n eu tr alunt il a llo fthe e vi den ce was i n. S he r epl i ed th ats he “ woul d t r y , c er ta inl y . ” Tr
. a t 86

. S he ex p lai ne d tha t she w orked on a bu sy corn er w he re she c oul d see the pol i ce m ake st ops. She added that she had cust om er s a nd fri ends w ho we re p olic e o ffi cer s, that she s om eti m es s aw the pol i ce g et agg re ssi ve wi th p e r s o n s wh o we r e b r e a k i n g th e l a w, b u t th a tt he l aw br eak er s s om eti m es h ad w eapons and she was g l ad th atthe po l i ce wer e ag g r es si ve i n the i r e nforce m en t of the law

. T h e c o u r t the n sou gh t to clari fy her ans w er,N o. 11

- 3389 9 ask i ng wh ether, “i n thi s par ti cul arcas e, yo u w oul d be a b l e t o l i s t e n t o a l l the t e s t i mon y , a nd i fthe e v i dence co nv i nc ed y o u th at the de f en dan t

— that i s, the pol i ce offi cer

— us ed ex ce ss i ve f o r ce wh ic h c au se d i nj ur y t o the pl aint i f f, the n y o u wou l d ha ve no pr o bl em award in g d am ag es , m o n ey to th em ? ” C ar el re p lied , “I gu es s if th e m on ey is go in g t o go for b ills , bu t if th e m on ey is going to j u st g o f or

— I ’ m notsur e. Do y ou know wh at I ’ m sa y i ng ?” Tr
. a t 86

- 87
. Ca r elthe n c l ar i fi ed th ats he coul d n o tj ud g e b e c a us e s he di d n o th a v e the e v i de nc e. W ith th is c lar ifica tio n, th e c ou rtas ke d o n c e a ga in whethe r s he c o uld aw ard m o ne y da m ag es t o the pl ai nti f fi fshe w as convi nced by the e vi dence thatthe p ol i ce office r w as w ro ng and cause d i nj uri es, and she answ er ed an unequiv oca l, “Yes. ” The co urt then as ked i fshe w as convi nced by the e vi dence thatthe offi cerhad not used ex ce ss i ve f o r ce , whethe r s he woul d b e abl e to s en d the pla i nti f fhom e with nothing, and she aga i n answered w i th an unequivo cal“Yes. ” Tr

. at87
. A fterthi s e xchange with the court, Gri ffi n’s co unsel questi oned Care l di re ctl y. I n part i cul ar, he a ske d w hat type ofev i dence she w oul d l i ke t o see i n an e xcessi ve f or ce c ase . Care l sa i d i t depended o n the c ase. Tr. at95
. Cou ns elthe n po si te d tha t i f th e p o l i ce o ffi ce r s ai d o ne th ing, an d the fourte en -year-ol d plaintiffsaid an oth er, w oul d C ar el“s tar t o ut sa ying , W el l, I ’ m go i ng to bel i eve the pol i ce o ffice r, w h y would he l i e?” Carelr esponded , “M ostl i kel y. ” Tr

. at96

. W h en ch alle n gin g C ar el fo r c au se , cou n se l for G riffin tol d the co urt, “Itho ught she sa i d that she wanted10 N o. 11

- 3389

re alev i dence, thati fi t was j ust

— i t ha d to b e bi l l s an d re c or d s a n d ev id en c e t h at ’s c on c re te rat h er th an te st im ony. ” Tr

. at14 1. The co urt sta ted thatal though Car el sa id sh e w ou ld ex p ec t t h at kin d of ev id en c e, s h e d id no ts a y s he c o ul d n o ta wa r d d a mag e s i n the absence o f s uc h e v i de nc e . Co un s e l f o r Gr i ffi n the n add e d, “I th ink sh e said sh e cou ldn ’t be f air. ” T r. at 141. Th e cou rt th en deni ed the chal l enge f orcause . On app eal, Gri ffin con ten d s tha t C arel i nd icated that she w ou ld give m ore cr edi t to the t es ti m o ny o fa po l i ce o ffi ce r, a nd tha t th e c ou rtn ev er as ke d h er if sh e c ou ld se t a s id e h er bia s in f av o r o fpo l i ce o ff icers a nd de ci de th e ca se f ai r l y a nd im p artiall y. B e ll c o nt en d s tha t G riffi n w aived this pa rti cul archal l enge by not ra ising i t be l ow, but we disag r e e . I n a ddi t i o n t o h i s c o nt e nt i o n tha tCa r e l wanted hard ev i dence, G riffin’s counselal so obj ecte d to Carelo n th e g roun d tha t sh e sa i d s he “ co ul dn’ t be f ai r . ” I n the conte xt o fthe back

- and-f or th d i scussi on be tw een cou ns el and the d istri ct cou rt, i t is clear that the co u rt un d erstood Griffin’s obj ection as rel ating to the j uror’s su p p osed preferen ce for t h e testim ony of a p oli ce offi cer. W e there f or e co nsi der the ar gum ent o n the m er i ts. C arel, of c o urs e, ne ver said that she cou ld n ot be fair

. A t m os t, sh e in d ica t e d t h at h er first inc lin at ion , i f f a c e d wi th confl i c t i ngs t o r i e s fr o m a p o l i c e o ffi c e r a nd a f ourt een- yea r- ol d boy, would “m ostl i kel y” be t o bel i eve the offi cer . A fter Car elsa i d her i ni ti ali ncl i nati on w oul d be t o bel i eve the pol i ce o ffi cer, Griffi n’s co unsel a s k e d: And w o ul d y o u c o ns i dertha t, W el l, S ha qui l l e Gr i ffi n, he i s here i n cour t be cause he wants m oney fro mN o. 11

- 3389 11 the pol i ce o f fi ceras a re aso n w hy you w oul d say, Iam not going to bel i eve wh at Shaqui l l e s ays ? Tr. at96. C ar elr epl i ed, “Idon’ t know that

. ” Tr

. at96

. The pri orcar eful question ing fro m the tr i alco urt j ud ge est abl i shed that Carelal so said t h at she co uld not j udg e wheth er s he c o ul d a war d da m ag es wi th o ut h ea rin g t h e e vid en c e. Sh e a l s o c l ar ified th at sh e c ou ld aw ar d dam age s i fthe ev i dence pro ved thatthe offi cer us ed exc essive force and cau sed inju r ies to the p lai nt iff. I n l i g h to fhe r a n s we r s t o a l l o fth e qu e s t i o n s , we cannot say thatthe dist ri ct c ou rt abuse d i ts disc re ti on i n f i n d i n gth a tC a r e l wa s n o ta b i a s e d wi t n e s s who shoul d be e xcl ud ed f orcause . C ar el’ s res p on se s t o t h e q u es tio n s d o n ot res em b le th o se o fthe j uror i n Thom ps on v. Al t he i m e r& Gr ay, 24 8 F.3 d 6 21 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) , a case o n w hi ch Gri ffi n re l i es i n pa r t. I n Thom ps on , th e pla in tiff b ro u gh t a rac e d isc rim inati on ca se aga i nst he r em p loyer

. A j urorwh o own ed a busin es s e xpresse d her bel i efthatem plo yee s s om eti m es bri ng l aw sui ts aga i nst thei r em plo yers j ust because t h ey did notge t s om ethi ng tha t they wanted from the em p loyer: I t hi n k I b r i n g a l o t o f b a c k g r o u n d t o th i s c a se , a nd I can’ t s ay that i t’ s no t g oi ng to cl oud m y j ud gm ent. I can tr y t o be a s f ai r as Ican, as Ido e ver y day. Thom ps on , 2 48 F
. 3d at6 24
. Af te r c o nc eding th ats he ha d thi s bi as, an d tha t i t woul d c l o ud he r j udg m en t, the c o ur tn e v e r c l a r i fi e d wh e the r the j uror c o ul d s e ta s i de he r b el i efs and f o l l o w the c o ur t’ s i ns tr uct i o ns o n the l aw . W e r em ar ked that“[ t] he qu es tio n i n thi s ca se w as12 N o. 11

- 3389
not w hether[ the j uror ’ s] bel i efthatso m e c lai m s a gai nst empl o y er s ar e spu r i o us was t r ue o r f al se . . . b ut w h et h er th is b elie f w ou ld so m eh ow im p ed e h er in g i vi ng d ue wei g htt o the e vi den ce a nd f o l l o wi ngthe j udg e’ s i ns tr uct i o ns . ” 24 8 F
. 3d at6 26

. Be ca us e th e j u ro r ex p re ss ly sa id th at h er p rior ex p er ien c e w ou ld c lo u d h er j u d gm en t, w e fo u n d th at th e c ou rtsh ou ld ha ve as k ed he r whethe r sh e woul d f o l l o w i ts inst r uct i o ns on the l aw and suspend j ud gm ent untilshe hear d al l o f the e vi dence. I n the i nstant case , Care l r esi ste d giving defini ti ve an swe r s to que st i o ns o n h ow she woul d de ci de th e c a s e b e c a u s e s h e d i d n o ty e t ha v e th e e v i d e n c e . We th in k Carel ’ s a nsw er s m or e cl ose l y r ese m bl ed thos e o f th e jur o r s i n U nite d State s v. R icke tts , 1 4 6 F
. 3 d 4 9 2 ( 7th Cir

. 19 98)

. I n that case , the defe nd ants w er e a ccused of parti ci pati ng i n a pri son ri ot. Duri ng vo ir dire, the potenti alj uror s were ask ed w h ethertheywould gi ve m or e wei ght t o the t est i m on y of a pri son guar d than an i nm ate
. 14 6 F

. 3d at 49 5. N ine j uror s i nd i cate d that they woul d l i st enmor e to the g ua r ds. W e f o und tha t th e record w as inad eq ua te to estab li sh that the j urors w er e biased i n a way that r equi re d thei r excl usi on fro m the j ury: I n the abst ra ct, i t i s ce rt ai nl y no t unre asonabl e f or ano r di na r y pe r so n t o s aysh e woul d g en er al l y t en d to b el i ev e a pr i so n g ua r d o ve r a pri so n i nm at e. But that cer tai nl y doe sn ’ t m ean that i n a g i ven ca se, aft e r h e a r i n gs wo r n t e s t i mo n y u n d e r o a th a n d c o nsi deri ng a ll the f acts and ci rcum sta nces, thatthatN o. 11

- 3389 13

sam e j urorwould auto m ati cal l y b el i eve a gi ven guar d overa gi ve n i nm ate
. Genera l i zed questi ons of the sort as ked her e a re a sl i m bas i s upon wh i ch to b as e a ch alle n ge for c au se . R icke tts , 1 46 F
. 3d at4 96

. I n Thom ps on , w e c lari fi ed that th e pr o bl em i n Ri c ke t ts w as that a t endency to bel i eve g uar ds o ve r i nm at es was no t i ts el fa s i g n o fb i as b ut w as sim p ly i n d i c at ive of a p rior be lief. Thom ps on , 24 8 F
. 3d a t 6 2 5
. We n o t e d a c r i t i c a l d i ff e r e n c e b e t we e n a p rior b elie f a n d a b ias in th e s en se th at req u ire s d isq u alific at ion of a jur or or jud ge : Every one bri ngs t o a c as e a se t o fbel i ef s that m ay in c lin e h im i n o n e d ire c tio n or a n ot h er . A p er so n to ld th at X had been i nd i cted, and ask ed w hether he tho ugh t X guil ty, m i ght r epl y that he thought X p ro b ab l y w as gu ilty be c au se few inn oc en t p eo p le ar e in d ict ed . Th at w ou ld be a p rior [be lie f]. I t w ou ld be a bi as o n ly i fi t were i rr ati onalo r unshakabl e, so that the pr ospect i ve j uror“would be unableto fai thfull y a nd i m parti al l y a pp l y the l aw , ” Wa i n wr ight v. Wit t, 46 9 U.S

. 41 2, 4 24 , 1 05 S

. Ct. 84 4, 83 L. Ed

. 2d 841 ( 1985 ) ( em phasi s a dd ed), would b e, i n other wo r ds , “ a da man t, ” Fleen orv. Ande rs on , 17 1 F

. 3d 1096 , 1099 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99)

— i n o u r h y p o the t i c a l i f, f o r e x a mple , the p erson add ed, “N othi ng wil l ev erco nvi nce m e th at th e g o ve r nm en t woul d i ndi ct an i nno ce nt p er so n .” Thom ps on , 2 4 8 F
. 3 d a t 6 2 5
. I n thi s c a s e , a l tho ug h Carel ex p r e ssed an initiali nc li na tion th at p oli ce offi cers are m or e cr edibl e than tee nager s, s h e neverexpre sse d an14 N o. 11

- 3389 i rr ati onalo r unshakeabl e bi as that i nd i cate d an i nabi l i ty orunw i l l i ngness to f ai thfull y a nd i m parti al l y ap p ly the l aw . I nstea d , s h e t ri ed to qual i fy heranswers by i nd i cati ng that she coul d no t say how she w ould ru le w i thout hear i ng the evi dence. That i s the o pp osi te ofbi as, an d th e t r i a l c ou rtd id n ot ab u se its d isc re tio n in re fu sin g t o s tr ik e C ar el for ca u se . See a lso U nited Sta tes v. A llen , 605 F.3d 46 1, 46 6 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 10 ), cert. denied , 13 1 S

. Ct

. 1 4 7 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) ( whe n a p r o s pe c t i v e j ur o r f a i l s to ex press her sel fcar efull y o r consi ste ntl y, the tr i alj ud ge is best situate d to det erm ine com p eten cy t o s e r ve im p artiall y).

3. G riffi n also sou gh t to strike j uror N ad in e M aam ari for ca u se . W h en th e d ist ric t c ou rtas ke d h ow s h e fe lt about pol i ce o f fi cer s i n general, M aam ar i r epl i ed that th ey“ do a d i f fi cul t an d da ng er o us j o b. ” Tr
. a t 70
. The cour t a l so as ked wh ethershe bel i eve d that pol i ce offi cer s so m eti m es use e xcessi ve f or ce a gai nst c i ti zens. M aam ar i r epl i ed, “W e hav e s een i t o n the new s. I t doe s happ en. ” S he co nfirm ed that she thought m oney damag es wer e appr o pr i at e to r edr es s i nj ur i es from e xcess ive f orce, but th at sh e w o u ld also send the p lai nt iff hom e with nothi ng i fhe f ai l ed to prov e hi s ca se. Tr. at 70. The co urt furthera ske d, “[ W ] oul d you be abl e t o su sp en d j u d gm en t i n th is c as e a n d liste n to all th e e vidence, ke ep an o pen m i nd unti l al l o fthe evid en ce has b ee n p re se n te d ? ” M aa m ar i an sw er ed , “I h op e so , y e s.” Tr. at71 . F i nal l y, the cour t a ske d, “A nd i fo nce Igi veN o. 11

- 3389 15 y o u t he i ns t r uc t i o ns o n the l a w t o a pp l y t o the fa ct s , do you bel i eve yo u’d be abl e t o ap plythatl aw ev en th ou gh you d on’t totally agree w ith th e law ?” M aam ari answ er ed, “Yes. ” Tr

. at71

- 72. Gr i f fi n’ s co uns ell at era sk ed a n um be r o ff o l l o w-u p questi ons. Counselas ked M aam ar i wh ethershe w oul d say that a p olice o f fi ceri s probabl y t el l i ng the tr uth beca use he i s a po l i ce o f fi ce r, a nd M aa m ar i a ns wer ed, “N o . ” The f o l l o wi nge xc ha ng e the n o c c ur r e d: Counsel : W oul d y ou thi nk that a pol i ce o ffi cerm ust

ha ve ha d a g o o d r ea so n t o do what ev erhe tel l s y ou he did b ec au se he i s a pol i ce officer? M aa m ar i: I w ou ld

— c o ul d y o u r e phr a s e thi s ? Or

re peat i t, pl eas e? C ou ns el: Y ou are goi ng to hear testim ony , yo u are

going to be ask ed t o re sol ve cre dibi l i ty, w ho i s t el l i ng the tr uth. W oul d y ou be

— woul d y o u st ar t o ut

— w oul d you a nal yze t h a tqu e s t i o n b y th i n k i ng

—by thi nki ng to your sel f, W el l, the pol i ce offi cerm ust hav e ha d a r ea so n to d o what ev erhe di d, he di d n ’ tj u s tb e a tth i s k i d u p f o r n o r e as o n? W oul d you thi nk tha t? M a a mar i : I p r o b a b l y wo ul d. Ip r o b a b l y wo ul d. Co un s e l : A nd tha t wo ul d mak e y o u mor e l i k e l y t o

say, W el l, t h e o ffi ceri s t el l i ng the tr uth because he m us t h ave had a go od r eas on t o do wh a th e di d?16 N o. 11

- 3389 M aa m ar i : Yo u, kno w, as I am hea r i ngyo ur que st i o ns

an d an sw ers, it’ s getting m ore a n d m ore confusi ng b ecause we are notgo i ng to he arj us t hi s si de o fthe stor y a nd Sha qu il le’ s side of the story. Im ean , there m us t be s o m e ev i den ce a nd s o m ethi ng m o r e to i t th anj us t he ar i ng

— Counsel : W el l, yo u w i l l be able to deci de that i fyo u

ar e se l ec te d as a j ur o rafte r y o u he ara l l the tes ti m ony. I f that’ s al l you hear, the pol i ce officer and Shaq uill e, am I right tha t you’d be m or e l i kel y t o say the pol i ce o ffi cer

— M aam ari: N o. You are not righ t . I am very, very

unc o m f o r tabl e i n mak i nga de ci si o n. Cou ns el : W o ul d y o u g i ve mor e weight to whatthe

po l i ce o ffi ce r s ai d b ec au se he i s j us t do i ng his j ob, he m us t hav e had a rea son [ for] wha t e v e r h e di d? M aam ar i : Pro babl y. Tr. at11 7- 19. Gr i f fi n cha l l en g ed M aa m ar i o n the g r o und tha t “s he coul d not be f ai r. ” Tr

. at13 9- 40. Counselag ain i nd i cate d th athe i nt en ded to c ha l l en g e f o r c au se an y j ur o r who said they w ou ld give m ore w eight to th e testim ony of a po l i ce o f fi ce r th an t o a f o ur te en - y ea r - o l d s tu den t. The cour t di sag re ed that any j urorhad expres sly i nd i cate d that they w oul d preferthe tes ti m ony ofa pol i ce o ffi cer j us t beca u s e t ha t pe rson w as a p oli ce offi cer. M oreover, t he c o ur tr e mar k e d:N o. 11

- 3389 17 I bel i eve Ias ked al l o fthem that

— w h et h er you w ou ld k ee p a n op en m i nd, l i st ent o a l l o fthe e vi den ce a nd th e cour t’ s i ns tr uct i o n b efo r e m ak i ngup y o ur min d as to w hat the ver dictsho uld be , and they al l sa i d yes. Tr. at14 0. M aam ar i, l i ke Carel, i nd i cate d a pri orbel i efthata p o l i c e o f fi c e r wo u l d p r o b a b l y b e mo r e c r e d ib l e tha n a tee n ager but she al so i nd i cate d that s he would ke ep an open m i nd and j ud ge the c ase by the ev idence and by the l aw a s s tat ed by the t ri alco urt. S he di d not e vi nce an i rr ati onalo r unshakeabl e bi as that w oul d preventher fro m ru lin g im p ar tia lly on th e c as e. Thom ps on , 24 8 F
. 3d at 62 5. A n d , l ike C ar el, sh e i n d ica te d th at sh e w ou ld k ee p a n o penmin d a nd no t m ak e up h er min d unt i l s he he ard allof t h e e v id en ce. In li gh t of allof th e ans w ers th at M aam ari gave to the q ue stion s o f both the cou rt and c ou n se l, we cannot say thatthe cour t abused i ts d iscretion in d e c lining to strike M aam ari from the j ury f orcause .
B. Gri f fi n next chal l enges the dist ri ct c ou rt ’s rul i ngs that he co uld notuse th e sti l l photo gr aphs that he had extr act e d fr o m t he v i de o i n hi s c a s e - i n- c hi e f, i n hi s c r o ssex ami na ti o n o fde f en se witne ss es , o r t o e xpl ai n t o the j u ry h ow h e re fr e s h ed h is re c olle c tio n ab ou t c er ta in facts before testifying. W e review the d istri ct cou rt’s ev id en tia ry ru lin gs f o r a b u se of d isc re tio n . Ever r oad v. Scott Truck Sys te m s, Inc. , 604 F.3d 471 , 475 (7th C ir.18 N o. 11

- 3389 20 10 ); Com m on v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 661 F.3d 940 , 946 (7th Cir. 2011 ). Gri f fi n i ni ti all y s ought to i ntro du ce the ent i re twom i nute vi deo, but on a pp ealco m pla i ns o nl y that he w as unabl e to i ntro du ce s ti l l photo gr aphs f ro m the vi deo. The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s r uling i ni ti al l y f ocuse d on the full vi deo, b utthe c o ur tf o un d tha ti t s r e a s o ni ngwa s a pp lica b le t o s till p h ot os ta ke n from th e v id eo as w ell. The cour t e xcl u d ed the vi deo be cause ( 1) Gri ffi n w as un a b l e t o a uthe nt i c a t e the v i de o wi th the t e s t i mony o f th e p er so n w h o m ad e it ; an d (2) th e v id eo w as u n d u ly pr ej udi ci alb ec au se i t sh o wed o nl y a s m al l pa r t o fthe confro ntati on. The co urt excl ud ed th e s ti l l photo s that had b ee n extr acte d fr om the vi deo f orthe sam e r eas on th e cou rt proh ibi ted the u se of th e video itself: Gri f fi n l acked a n y witness w ho co uld authenti cate th e i m ag es , a nd the s el ec ti ve pr es en ta ti o n ofthe i m ag es was undu l y pr ej udi ci al

. Gr i ffi n co nt en ds th atthe court err ed when i t r equi r ed Gr i ffi n t o pr o duce the perso n w ho cr eat ed the vi deo i n or d erto authenti cate i t. Gri f fi n ar gues that he hi m sel fco uld have authenti cate d th e vi deo

. Gr i f fi n do es no t ch al l en g e th e co ur t’ s r ul i ng th at p h ot os w er e u n d u ly p rej u d icia l. G riffi n’s fail ure to challenge th e d istrict cou rt’s al te r na te r ea so n ( undue pr ej udi ce ) f o r ex cl udi ngthe p hot os is fatal to his claim of error. W he n a d is trict court g i ve s two i nde pen den t, di spo si ti ve r ea so ns f o r r ul i ng aga i nst a party, and the party chal l enges onl y one oftho se gr ounds, any chal l enge to the a l ter nate basi s i s wai ved and w e m ay affi rm . H ess v. Reg- Ell e n M ac hi neTool Corp. ,N o. 11

- 3389 19 42 3 F .3d 65 3, 66 4-6 5 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. ZunigaLa z a ro , 38 8 F.3d 30 8, 31 4 (7th C i r . 2 0 0 4); Se ne s ev. Chi cago Are a I
. B. of

T. Pe ns i on Fun d, 237 F.3d 819, 823 ( 7th Cir. 2001). Bu t e v e n i fwe we r e t o c o ns i de r Gr i ffi n’ s c l a i m t hat th e co ur t er r ed i n i ts fi ndi ng th at Gr i ffi n co ul d no t au th en ti cate the vid eo orthe sti l l photo s e xtra cted fro m th e v id eo w ith ou t t h e v id eo gr ap h er , w e w ou ld st ill affi rm . A ccor ding to Gr i ffin’ s l a wy e r, the two- m i nute vi deo was e - ma i l e d t o h i m b y He a th e r B r o wn, a n o th e r s t u d en t at the s choolwh o knew Gri ffi n. Counselco uld notsa y whe t he r th e v i d e o w a s t a k e n w i th a c e l l p h o n e o r a c a mc o r d e r, a n d c o n c e d e d th a t th e r e w a s n o d a t e o r t i me sta m p on the vid eo . N or co uld he ver i fy i fthe vi deo had been a l ter ed at any t i m e. H e affi rm ed that the v i deo p or tr aye d onl y a sm al l parto fthe i nci dent. The still pho to s, o fc o ur se , d ispl ay ed ev enl es s o fthe i nc i den t than the two- m i nute vi d eo , a nd ev en m or e s el ecti vel y. Gri f fin c onte nd s that no ne o fthati nfo rm ati on was r equir ed beca use he coul d hav e te sti fi ed that the photo s w er e what he cl ai m ed them to be ; hi s t est i m ony, he a rg ues, i s s uffi ci ent f orauthenti cati on under F edera l Rule o f E vide nc e 901(b)(1). Th at R ule, t it le d “Te stim ony of a W i tn es s wi th Kno wl edg e, ” pr o vi des tha t “[ t] es ti m o ny that an i tem i s what i t i s cl ai m ed to be” i s s uffi ci ent t o sa ti sfy the r equi r emento fa uthe nt i ca tingo r i den ti fyi ng an i tem o fev id en c e. Bu t Gri ffi n w as not a “ w i tness with kn ow led ge .” B y h is la w ye r’s ow n ad m iss ion , he co u ld n ot s ay h ow the vi deo was m ade, o r w hetheri t had ev er been alte red. There w er e m any v al i d rea sons to cal l i nto questi on the authent i ci ty ofthe vi deo and st i l l photo

gr ap h s, an d m an y q u es tio n s a b ou t t h e v id eo th at co u ld20 N o. 11

- 3389 be a n s we r e d o n l y b y th e s t u d e n t wh o p r o d u c ed th e re cor ding. The cour t did not abuse i ts disc re ti on i n requi r i ngGr i f fi n t o p r o du c e the ma k e r o fthe v i deo bef or e al l owing adm i ssi on ofsti l l p hoto s e xtra cted fro m i t.

C. W e m ay d isp en se w ith G riffin ’ s re m ain in g iss u e in shor t o rder

. H e o bj ecte d to Offi cerBel l ’ s t est i m ony re ga rd i ng pol i ce depar tm ent r ule s o n m aki ng ar re sts
. Even i f it w as er ro r to al l ow a br i efr efer ence to com pli ance w ith d e p a r t m en ta l p ro c ed u re s, G riffin fails to ex p lain h ow th is e rro r p rej u d ice d h im in a m an n er th at w ou ld re qui r e a n e w t r i a l

. “ Unl e s s j us t i c e r e qu i r e s o the r wi se, no err orin adm i tti ng or excl ud i ng ev i dence

— orany othe r er ro r by the c ourto r a par ty

— i s g ro u n d for g ra nti ng a ne w t r i a l, f o r s e t t i nga s i de a v e r di c t, o r f o rvac ati ng, m od ifying, or otherw ise distu rbing a j ud gm en t or order. A t e ver y s tag e o fthe proce edi ng, t h e c ourtm ust di sr eg ar d a l l e r r o r s an d de fects th atdo no t aff ec t an y p arty’s sub stan tial rights.” Fed

. R. Civ . P . 6 1. E vide nt iary er r o r s sa ti sfy thi s st an dar d o nl y i fthe r e i s a si g ni fi ca nt c h an c e t h at th ey affe c te d th e o u t c om e o f th e t ria l. M ihailovich v. Laa ts ch , 359 F .3 d 892, 913 (7th Cir. 2004). Gri f fi n does not ar gue that a dm i tt in g thi s e vi dence aff ec te d the o ut co m e o fthe t r i al, a nd the r e i s th us no b as is for h is c laim for a n ew tria l. A FFI RMED .
9- 4- 12