## 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

- 2225 S ARAH W HI T EH EA D , Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. L AWRENCE J. B OND , et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C3765

—RubenC astil lo, Judge .
A RG UE D M AR CH 27, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AY 21, 2012

Befo re F LA UM, W I L L I A MS, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T I NDER, C ircu it Judge. Pl ai nti ffS ar ah W hi tehea d bro ught thi s s uitunder 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983 aga i nst Chi cago p o l i c e o ffi c e r s T h o ma s S t a c k, Mi c ha e lS t e v e n s , a n d L a wre nce B o nd ( a nd o the r s wh o a r e n o tp a r t i e s t o thi s a ppeal ) al l egi ng F ourth A m endm ent c l ai m s o ff al se ar re st an d e xc es si ve f o r ce ( an d o th erc lai m s no t ati ss ue )
. The eve nts g i vi ng r ise to W hi tehea d’s ar re st bega n w hen Offi cer Bond and hi s partner Offi cer K evi n G eye r2 N o. 11

- 2225 sto pp ed W hi tehea d’s adult so n, D ani el, fora tr affi c vi ol ati o n. Aft er th e o ffi ce r s f o und cr ac k co ca i ne i n th e car, Danielat tem pted to flee , res ult i ng i n a physi calal ter cati on be tw een hi m and the offi cer s. W hi tehea d, w ho l i ved c l o s e , wa s t o l d b y a ne i g hb o r, “ y o u h a v e t o g e td o wn to the c or ner, ” “ they’ re ki l l i ng y our son. ” W hi tehea d hu r r i e d t o th e sc e ne ; wha to c c ur r e d ne xti s h o t l y c o nt e s t e d. W hi tehea d cl ai m s s he was cal m l y a ski ng ab ou t herso n w hen she w as accost ed by Offi cerBond and arr est ed by Lt. S tev ens f orno apparent re aso n. S gt. S tackand Lt. St eve ns te sti fi ed that W hi tehea d w as yel l i ng, bei n g aggr es siv e, an d lea d in g t h e c ro w d th at h ad ga th er ed in a char ge toward Offi cerBon d , s o they ar re ste d her and place d her i n the pri sone r w ago n for fi ve to ten m i nutes b ef or e r elea si ng her

. Offi cerBond test i fi ed that he ne ve r s aw W hi te he ad, S g t. S ta ck, orLt
. S te ve ns a t th e scene and l eft a l m osti m m edi ate l y afterpl aci ng Dani el i n the squad car. S gt. S tackte stifi ed that he and Offi cer Bo nd sp oke b r i efl y a fte r W hi te he ad was pl ac ed i n the pr i so ne r wag o n. Befo re tr i al, W hi tehead m ove d to excl ud e e vi dence ofev ents that prece ded her a rriva l and tes ti m ony that th e ev en ts t o o kpl ac e i n a “ hi g h- cr i m e ar ea . ” The d ist ric t c ou rtd en ied th e m ot ion
. A f te r a fo u r-d ay tria l, the j ury re turned a ver dicti n f avor ofthe defe nd ants. W hi te h ea d m ove d fo r j ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw o n th e f al se a r r es t cl ai m , a r g ui ngtha t th e o ffi ce r s’ t es ti m o ny w as i nherent l y i nc re dibl e a nd physi cal l y i m possibl e. In t h e a lte rn at ive , sh e s ou gh t a n ew tria l on th e b as is th atthe v er di ctwas aga instthe mani f es t wei g hto ftheN o. 11

- 2225 3 evi dence and the dist ri ct c ourter ro neousl y a dm i tte d und ulyprej ud i ci alev i dence i n vi ol ati on o fRule 4 03 o f the F edera l R ule s o fEvi dence. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed h e r mo t i o n s . B e c a u s e we fi n d th a tthi s c a s e b o i l s d o wn to a cr edibi l i ty conte st that w as proper l y r ese rv ed f o r r es o l ut i o n b y the j ur y a nd becau se w e do no t fi nd r ev er sibl e er r o r i n the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s ba l an ci ngo fthe proba ti ve val ue and prej ud i ci aleff ect ofthe chal l enged e v i d e n c e , w e a ffi r m.

I. Facts On J un e 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 , a r o un d 4 : 2 5 p . m. , Ch i c a g o p o l i ce officers Bon d and Ge yer pu ll ed over D an iel, th e plaintiff’s adult son, atthe 800 bl ocko f S ou th Laver gne S tr eet n ea r W es t P olk Str ee t in C h ica go be c au se th e v eh icle he was dri vi ng had no l i cense pla tes
. Danie ldi d n ’ t hav e a d river’ s li cen se or proof of ins u ran ce, so th e officers ha ndcu ff ed hi m a nd pl aced hi m i n the s qua d c ar . The o ffi ce r s al so pl ac ed hi s p assenge r, J ames J o ne s, i n the squa d c ar . The o ffi ce r s se ar ch ed Dani el ’ s ca r a nd f o und bagg i es of cra ck coca i ne. W hen the offi cer s o pened th e do o r o fthe s qua d c ar, J o ne s pus he d hi s way o uta nd r a n. Da ni e l, a c c o r di ng t o the o ffi c e r s ’ t e s t i mony, m a de a s i m i l arat tem pt to fl ee an d , w hen the offi cer s t ri ed to sto p him , a str uggl e e nsu ed , d uri ng wh i ch Danie l k i ck ed O ffi ce r Bo nd i n the c he st, k no ck i nghi m t o the gr ound. J ones go t a w ay, but th e offi cer s were abl e t o su b d u e D an iel. W h ite h ea d p re se n te d ey ew itn es s t es timon y f r o m n e i g hb o r J a mes F i nk l e y tha t the o ffi c e r s bea t D an ielu nt ilh e s hook b ad ly an d stop p ed m oving. Offi cers Geyerand Bond test i fi ed otherwis e.4 N o. 11

- 2225 A cr o wd had st ar te d g ath er i ngfr o m b o the nds o fthe b l o c k

. Whi l e Offi c e r Ge y e r h a d D a ni e l o n the g r oun d, Of fi ce r Bo nd i nf o r m ed di spa tch o fthe s i tu at i o n a nd re quested bac kup offi cer s. A l though the te sti m ony at tr i alwas confl i cti ng, anywhere f ro m f our to tw enty peo pl e had g athe r ed. Acco r di ngt o the o ffi ce r s, the cro w d, w hi ch w as ro w dy and yel l i ng atthem , w as led by M arcu s M yn att. A s the cro w d d rew closer, the offi cers or dered the m to st ay back, but M ynattdi dn ’ t co m ply

. The di spa tc he r he ar d th e co m m o ti o n at th e sce ne a nd de c l a r e d a “ 1 0

- 1 , ” wh i c h mea ns a n offi c e r n e e ds im m ed iate em e r g e nc y help ; i t is th e highe st-level alert and request s the i m m edi ate pre sence ofo ffi cer s fro m i nsi de and outsi de the dist ric t. W i thi n sec onds, Offi cer G eyer in fo r m e d the d ispa tch er that i t w as no t a 10-1 and sai d “eve ry thi ng was und erco ntro l

. ” But ev en w he n a 10-1 is called off officers w ithin th e d istri ct gen erall y com e to i nv estigate. A p p roxim atel y n in e po li ce cars ( si xt ee n t o e i g ht ee n po l i ce o ffi ce r s) wer e atthe s ce ne w ith in m in u te s o f th e c all. Of fi ce r s S wee ne y a nd Be l ch erwer e th e fi r stb ac k up officers to arri ve. Offi cer Sw een ey testifi ed that there w ere ten or few er pe op le in th e crow d

. A t the tim e, O ffice rs Bond and Geyerwere tryin g t o detai n Danie l and they yel l ed f orOffi cer s S w eeneyand Bel cher to gr ab M ynatt; upo n h ea r i ngthi s, M y na ttr an . Officers S wee ne y a nd Bel ch erc ha se d hi m , qui ck l y a ppr eh en ded hi m , a nd secur ed hi m i n a squad car . M or e pol i ce c ar s s tar ted arri vi ng. Offi cer Bond tes ti fi ed that al though peop le in the c ro w d w ere s ti l l ye l l i ng, he was l ess co ncer ned w i thN o. 11

- 2225 5 th em be ca us e th e as si sti ng o ffi ce r s co ul d ha ndl e th e sit u at ion ; he tu rn ed h is a tt en tio n to D an iel. Befo re Offi cerBond le ft with Danie l, a nei ghborr an an d t o l d W hi te he ad, who l i ve d a few b l o ck s do wn th e street, “ Yo u ha ve t o g etdo wn to the c o r ne r, ” “the y’re ki l l i ng y our son, ” without i denti fyi ng wh o “they ” were. W hi te he ad, f o l l o wed b y he r hus ba nd D o na l d, l eft th e h ou se im m e d iat ely an d h ea d ed to th e s c en e. D on ald tes ti fi ed that he sa w te n to tw enty pri vate ci ti zens out on th e s tr ee t w h en th ey arr ive d . W h at h ap p en ed aft er th eir ar ri vali s di sputed and is the cente rpi ece ofthe tr i al contr ove rs y. L t. St ev en s a n d Sgt . Sta c k a r r i ve d on th e s c en e s h or tly afte r the 1 0- 1 ca l l

. Lt
. S te ve ns t es ti fi ed th at w he n h e ar ri ved i t w as a “ chaot i c si tuati on” and that there was a cr o wd o ft e n t o fi ft e e n p e o p l e i n a n a l l e y o n L a v e r g ne an d a nothe r c r o wd on th e co r ne r o fPo l k

. Lt
. S te ve ns hear d people i n the cro w d y el l “fuck the pol i ce. ” S gt. S tack te st ifie d t h at h e s aw a gr ou p of te n to tw en ty p eo p le o n Lav er g ne an d th at th e cr o wd was y el l ing and appe ar ed ho st i l e. Bo tho ffi ce r s t est i fi ed th atOffi ce r Bo nd w as sti l l o n the scene st an d in g o utsi de hi s s quad car whe n the y a r r i v e d. Acco r di ngt o the o fficer s, W hi te he ad was a t th e f ro nt o fthe cro w d, fl ai l i ng herar m s, scr eam i ng, ye ll i ng, sw e a r i ng, a nd c o mpl e t e l y o uto fc o nt r o l

. Whi t e he a d was m ov in g t ow a rd O ffice r B on d ’s s q u ad ca r as p eo p le in the c ro w d w er e t ry i ng to hol d he r b ac k. Lt. S tev ens was concern ed thatW hi tehea d m i ght t ryto l et the o ff ender out, at tackthe offi cer s, o r had a psychi atr i c i l l ness.6 N o. 11

- 2225 L t. St ev en s o rd er ed th e c ro w d to st ep ba c k a n d ca lm d ow n , but W hi tehea d refused to co m ply

. A ccor ding to Sg t. S tack, W hi tehea d w as tw enty to thi rty feetfro m Offi cerBond. She conti nued to scr eam , br oke fre e fro m th e c r o w d , and began crossing th e street tow ard Offi cer Bond. Lt. S tev ens s tepped between W hi tehea d an d Offi ce r Bo nd’s ca r a nd o r der ed W hi te he ad an d the cro w d to ste p back, but she k ept ad vanci ng. I t was a r o u n d th i s t i me ( a t 4 : 3 2 p . m.

— onl y a co up l e m i nutes afterthe fi rs t backup offi cer s a rr i ved) , thatOffi cerM ar i sol Rand oni s s how ed up on the scene w i th the pri sone r wag o n. W he n s he a r r i ve d s he s aw Lt
. S teve ns s ta ndi ng on the si dew al k ta lking to W hi tehea d; she t est i fi ed that they (L t. S tev ens a nd W hi tehea d) were abo ut twenty to thi r tyfee t apa r t. She he ar d W hi te he ad sc r ea m i nga nd yel l i ng l oudly in a n angr y t one, l oud enough t o be hear d a f oo tbal l

- fi el d l ength aw ay. Sh e test i fi ed that W hi t e he a d wa s b e l l i g e re nta nd wa s mo v i ngh e r h a nd s ag g r essi ve l y . Othe r o ffi ce r s wer e tr y i ngt o di spe r se the c ro w d s a n d sh e s aw a c ro w d o ft e n to fifte en p eo p le disper si ng. Lt
. S t e v e ns t e s t i f i e d tha th e g r a b b e d Whi t e he a d, hand cuffed her ( orh ad som eone handcuffher ) , and, with the a ssi sta nce o fS gt. S tack, walk ed her to the pri sone r w ago n. Lt. St eve ns and S gt. St ack tes ti fi ed th at Offi cer Bond was abo ut te n feetaway wh en W hi te head w as hand cuffed; nei thero fficersa w W hi tehea d i nter act w i th Offi cerBond orknew w hetherOffi cerBond saw W hi tehead. Lt. S tev en s testi fi ed that these ev ents happ ened w ithin tw en ty to thirty secon d s after his ar r ival, that “[i ]t al l happened veryqui ckl y, ” a nd was a “ver y fl uid, qui ckN o. 11

- 2225 7 si tuati on. ” W hi tehea d w as detai ned fo r obs tr ucti ng a pea ce o ffi ce r, r ec k l es s co nduc t, di so r der l y c o nduc t, a nd m o b ac ti o n. Offi cer s Bond and Geyer test ified thattheyl eft a l m ost i m m edi ate l y a fterse curi ng Dani eli n the squa d car. A ccor ding to Offi cerGeyer, they w er e o n the scene l ess th an f i f t e en m in u te s. B ot h offic er s t es tifie d th at th ey d id not see S gt. S tack, Lt. S tevens, W hi tehea d, ora pri sone r w ago n at the s cene. Offi cerBond sai d he could n’tsa y w hetherhe was o n the scene w hen W h ite head w as th er e. S g t. S ta ck, ho wev er, t es ti fi ed th ata fte r pl ac i ng W hi te he ad i n the pr i so ne r wag o n, he w en t o ve r a nd sp ok e t o O ffice r B on d for a m in u te or m in u te an d a h alf about w hat happened, wh etherhe was hurt, wh ether the o ff ender w as hurt, and w hetheranyo ne nee ded m edi ca l a tt en ti o n. W h ite h ea d ’s a c c ou n t o f w h at to ok p lac e t h at d ay is m u c h di ff er ent. S he te sti fi ed that she e ncounter ed a c alm sc en e an d tha t Lt. S te ve ns was ta lki ng t o the c r o wd and l aughi ng. S h e s aw Offi cerBond standi ng o utsi de a pol i ce ca r, a pproach ed hi m , i nf o r m ed hi m who s he was , a nd a s k e d ab o uth e r s o n. Whi t e he ad, h e r h us b a nd Do na l d, an d e y ewi tn es s F i nk l eyt es ti fi ed th atOffi ce r Bon d e xplo ded , and said, “H e’ s a fucki ng i dio t. ” Accordi ng to W hi tehea d a nd Donal d, Offi cer Bond or dered her to st ep ba cko n the curb, pushi ngher, ki ck i nghe r he el s, a nd bel l y-bum p in g her al ong the way. Offi cerBond w as sw ear i ng and a cti ng l i ke he w as going to hi t W h itehead eve n though she w as full y c oo perat i ng and cal m . ( Fi nkl ey tes ti fi ed that he did n ’t see Offi cerBond pu sh, ki ck, bel l y-8 N o. 11

- 2225 bum p, or physi cal l y touch W hi tehea d. H e w as distr ac te d b y a n o ffi ce r t el l i nghi m t o g etb ac ka nd the ne xt ti m e he dir ecte d his a tt en ti on t o W hi tehea d, she was in te ra c tin g w ith L t. St ev en s.) At tha t po i nt, a cc o r di ngt o W hi te he ad, Lt
. S tevens i nt er ve ne d, t r y i ng to ho l d Offi ce r Bo nd b ac k, b utBo nd k e ptt r y i ngt o g e t a r o un d Lt
. S t e v e ns t o a t t a c kWhi t e he a d. Donal d tol d W hi tehea d to com e t oward h i m and Lt. St eve ns sa i d, “Go ahead, Bi tch. Keep w al ki ng. ” W hi tehea d to l d Lt

. S te vens sh e co ul d e xpe ctthi s l an g ua g e f r o m the o ffi ce r, b utno t f r o m hi m ( a l i eu te na nt ). Lt
. S te ve ns o r der ed he r no t to s pea kand she re spo nde d, “ Iwon ’ t, ” an d then Lt. S te vens sai d “That’ s i t. You’ re under ar re st. ” Lt. St eve ns gr abbed her, had herhandcuffed, and re quested Of fi ce r R an do ni s to pl ac e he r i n the pr i so ne r wag o n. (O ffice r R an d on is t es tifie d th at W h ite h ea d vio len tly r es i st ed be i ngputi n the pr i so ne r wag o n, b utLt. S te ve ns and Sgt

. S tackbo th te sti fi ed th at W hi tehea d did not re sis t a rre st .) There i s confl i cti ng tes ti m ony as to how l ong W hi tehea d wa s i n th e w a g o n . T h e j u r y h e a r d th e f o l l o win gt i me est im ates fro m the f ol l owing w i tness es: Lt. S tev ens, 2- 10 m i nu t e s ; S g t
. S t a c k, 2

- 5 mi nu t e s ; R a nd o ni s , 1 0 mi nu tes ; W hi tehea d, 20 m i nutes; and Fi nkley , 1 0 m i nutes. Lt. S t e v e ns t e s t i fi e d tha tDo na l d c a me up t o h i m a nd s a i d, “I ’ m herhusband. S h e’s a cti ng cr azy . Pl eas e l et her go. I ’ l l ta ke care of her. ” He i nfo rm ed Lt. S tev ens that W hi te he ad was the o ff en der ’s mothe r . Lt
. S te ve ns r el ea se d W hi teh ea d b ec au se s he ha d c al m ed do wn. S he w as not charg ed with a cr i m e. Lt. S tev ens t est i fi ed that he was on the sc ene f ora tot alo ffi ve to ten m i nutes.N o. 11

- 2225 9 N um er ous o thero ffi cer s te stifi ed at tr i althatwh en they ar ri ved the cro w d was not acti ng unrul y an d th at Offi cer s Bond an d G ey erwere sti l l o n the scene. They tes ti fi ed that they ei therdi dn ’ t s ee W hi tehea d orthat sh e was a l r ea dy i n the pr i so ne r wag o n. At l ea sto ne o ffi ce r di dn’ t r ec al l s ee i ngLt
. S te ve ns , S g t. S ta ck, o r the pri sone r w ago n at the s cene.

I I . An al ysi s W hi te he ad r ai se s th r ee i ss ue s o n a ppea l

. F i r sts he assert s tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n f ai l i ngt o g r an t he r mot i o n f o r j udg m en t as a m atter o fl aw b ec au se the o ffi ce r s’ t es ti m o ny was e xceedi ng l y i m pr o babl e an d p h ys ica lly im p os sib le. N ex t s h e c on te n d s t h at ev en if the offi cer s’ te sti m ony i s no t e xcl ud ed on those gr ounds, the d ist ri ct c ourtsho uld have gr anted hera new tr i al because the ver dictwas ag ain st the m ani f estweight o f the e vidence. S he al so ar gues that she i s e nti tl ed to a new tr i albec ause the di str i ct c ou rtabuse d i ts disc re ti on i n ba l anci ng ev i dence und erRule 40 3. W e a dd re ss ea c h arg u m en t in tu rn .
A
. Mo t i o n f o rJ u d g me n ta s a Ma t t e ro fL a w W e r e v i e w the di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de ni a l o f the mot i o n f or j ud gm en t as a m atter of l aw de novo, taking “th e record a s a wh o l e t o de t e r mi ne wh e the r the e v i de nc e p r e s e nt e d, c om b in e d w ith all rea so n ab le in fer en c es p er m iss ibly draw n ther efro m , i s s uffi ci ent t o supp or t the ve rdi ct w hen vi ew ed i n the l i ght m ostf avo ra b le to the party10 N o. 11

- 2225 aga i nst whom the m oti on i s di re cted. ” C lare tt v
. Ro be rts , 657 F.3d 664, 674 (7th Cir. 2011) (qu otations om itted ). R u l e 5 0 ( a ) o fth e Fe der a l R u l e s o fC i v i l P r o c e d u r e a l l o ws a di st r i ctc o ur t to e nt erj udg m en t agains t a pa r tywho ha s b e e n fu l l y h e a r d o n a n i s s u e d u r i n g a j u r y t r i al b ut only if“a rea son able j ury w ou ld n ot ha ve a legall y suffi ci ent e vi denti ar y b asi s t o fi nd for th e party on that i ssue. ” F ed. R. Ci v. P. 50 (a)
. Because the defendants p re va iled attria l, w e c on st ru e t h e f a c ts st ric tly in t h eir fav or . See Schand el m ei er-Ba rt el s v. C hi. P a rk D is t. , 63 4 F
. 3d 37 2, 37 6 (7 th C ir
. 2 01 1). “In ca se s in vo lvin g s im p le i ssues but hi ghl y di sp uted f acts ( an apt des cri pti on o f th i s ca se ) , g r eater defer en ce s ho ul d b e aff o r ded th e j ur y ’ s v er dict

. ” La tino v. Ka iz er, 58 F. 3d 310, 314 (7th Cir. 1995 ) (paren th etical i n origi na l)

. The tr i alin t h is case, si m plyst ate d, w as a cr edibi l i ty conte st. “Altho ugh the c ou rt exam i nes the ev i dence to deter m in e w h etherthe j ury’ s v er dictwas base d on that evi de n ce, the cour t doe s no t m ake cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati ons orweigh the evi de n c e. ” Schand el m ei er-Ba rt el s , 63 4 F.3 d at37 6. A d ist ric t c ou rtca n d isr eg ar d te st im on y on ly if “re as on ab le p er so n s c ou ld n ot be liev e” it b ec au se it “co ntra dict s i nd i sputabl e physi calf acts o r l aw s. ” Lat i no , 58 F.3d at31 5; s e ea l s o M e j i a v. Co okCn ty. , Ill
. , 6 50 F. 3d 63 1, 63 3 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ); Burge rv. Int ’ l U ni on of Ele vat or C o nstru cto rs Lo ca l No . 2, 49 8 F
. 3d 750, 75 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( the obj ecti ve evi dence m ust show that itwould be unreason able to beli eve a critical w itnes s for one side). E vid en c e is inc re d ible as a m at t er of law on ly w h en it w oul d h a v e b e e n “ ph y s i c a l l y i mpo s s ib l e f o r the wi t ne ss to ob s e r v e th at w h ich h e c laim s o c c u rre d , or im p os sib leN o. 11

- 2225 11 und erthe l aw s o fnatur e for the o ccurr ence to have ta ke n p lac e a t a ll

. ” Unit e d S ta tes v. Johns on , 43 7 F
. 3d 665, 67 5 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ) (q u ot at ion s o m itt ed ); see also U nited State s v. C ervante, 9 58 F
. 2d 17 5, 1 80 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 2) ( st at i ng th at we wi l l no t di sturb cr edibi l i tyde termi na ti o ns un less the tes tim ony i s “ex cee d in gly i m p robab le”). “Di sc r epa nc i es a r i singfr o m i m pea ch m en t, i nc o ns i st en t pri orst ate m ents, o r the e xi sten c e ofa m oti ve do not re nd erw i tness testi m ony l ega l l y incre dibl e. ” U nited Sta tes v. M cE ntire, 153 F.3d 424 , 435 (7th C ir. 1998). W hi tehea d contends that i n rul i ng o n her m oti on fo r j u d gm en t a s a m at te r of law , th e d ist ric t c ou r t s h ou ld h av e d isr eg ar d e d th e o ffice rs ’ te st im on y a s in h er en tly i ncre dibl e. She expla i ns thatOffi cer s Bond and Geyer tes tified that they di dn ’ t s ee Lt. S tev ens, S gt. S tack, o r W h ite h ea d on th e s c en e a n d leftalm os t im m ed iat ely afterplac in g Dani eli n the squad car. A ccor ding to Lt. S te ve ns a nd S g t. S te ve ns , tho ug h, W hi te he ad, s ta ndi ng ten feetfro m Offi cerBond, w as acti ng ag gr ess i vel y, yel l i ng, and charg i ng to w ar d him

. S gt. S tackal so tes ti fi ed th athe s poke to O ffi ce r Bo nd f o r abo uta min ut e an d a ha l fa fte r pl ac i ngW hi te he ad i n the pr i so ne r wag o n. The re can be no doubt that there were i nconsi ste nci es be twe enLt
. S te ve ns ’ a nd S g t. S ta ck ’ s te sti m o ny a nd Of fi ce r s Bo nd’ s an d Ge y er ’ s te st i m o ny . S uchi nc o nsi st en ci es , ho wev er, a r e no t en o ug h t o fi nd the t es ti m o ny i ncre dibl e a s a m att ero fl aw . F ori nstance , the j ury w as fre e to disr ega rd Offi cerBond’s tes ti m ony and i nstea d cre ditLt. S te ve ns’ and Sg t. S tack ’ s v er si on o fthe eve nts. Se e U ni t e d St at e s v. C o ls t on , 936 F.2d 312 , 315 (7th C ir.12 N o. 11

- 2225 1991 ) (“G en erall y, j uries m ay rej ect p arts o f a w itness ’s te st im on y w h ile ac c ep tin g ot h er p ar tie s.” ); s e ealso Krau s haarv. Fl anigan , 45 F .3d 1040, 1054 (7th C ir. 1995). L t. St ev en s’ a n d Sgt . Sta c k’s te st im on y w as n ot int er n ally i ncon s i s t e nta nd wa s c o r r o b o r a t e d in mos tr e s pe c ts by Offi cerRandonis

. A l though o thero ffi cer s t est i fi ed that they di d not obs er ve W h itehe ad oran unrul y c ro w d w hen they ar ri ved, the re cor d i s uncl earwh en ea ch offi cerar ri ved an d wher e th eywer e i n r elat i o n t o the c r o wd. The si tuati on with W hi tehea d w as re sol ved w i thin twenty to t h irty sec ond s, qu ite possibly before the oth er officers ar ri ved. A l so, the offi cer s were testi fyi ng to ev ents that to o k p lace tw o and a half years earlier an d there w er e num er ous di str acti ons at the s cene, wh i ch spanned a b l o c k

. T he o ffi c e r s ’ p e r s pe c t i v e s r e a s o nab l y v a r i ed d e p e nd ing on th e exa ct tim e of th eir arrival, w he re th ey w ere (squ ad cars w e re pa rked allalong the block), an d wher e th eyf o cus ed th ei r a tt en ti o n ( the r e wer e ni ne pol ice car s o n the scene, approxi m ate l y e i ghtee n pol i ce o ffi cer s, and t wo c r o wds

— o ne i n a n a l l eyo n La ve r g ne an d anoth er on th e corne r ofPolk). I t would have al so bee n r eas onabl e f orthe j ury to bel i eve Offi cerBond’s tes ti m ony that he w as not f ocuse d o n the cro w d a nd w as i nstea d pr eoc c u p ied with th e e v e n t s th at h ad j u st tra n sp ire d an d h ad tu rn ed h is att enti on t o Daniel

. M i nute s bef or e, Danie l had ki cked Offi c e r Bo nd i n the c he s ta nd kn o c k e d hi m t o the g r o un d. W h ile O ffice rs B on d an d G ey er t r i e d to su b d u e D an iel, a cr owd st ar ted y elling at and app ro achi ng the m . Offi cerN o. 11

- 2225 13 Bond f aced a chaot i c, te nse, and ra pidl y unf old ing s i tuatio n . W h en W h ite h ea d ar riv ed , th e cro w d s (loca te d in tw o place s) w ere s t illun ruly and l ou d and there w ere po l i ce c ar s an d o ffi ce r s al l a l o ng the b l o ck

. Offi ce r Bo nd t e s t i fi e d tha t he wa s i ni t i a l l y c o nc e r ne d wi th the c r o wd, b u t w h en as sis tin g off ice rs sh ow e d u p , he foc u se d h is at tenti on o n Danie l

. A l though Dani elwas sec ured i n the squad car, Offi cerBond w as re sponsibl e f ortr ansport i ng hi m to t h e st ati on a nd co m ple ti ng hi s f or m al ar re s t
. And J a mes J o ne s , wh o h a d e s c a pe d the o ffi c e rs ’ g r as p, was s ti l l o n the l o o se , a no th erpo te nt i al l y di sc o ncer ti ng f act. Give n the othe r di s t r a c t i o ns o n the scene and that O fficer Bond ’ s att enti on w as no l onge r on the cro w d , i t wo ul d h a v e b e e n r e a s o nab l e f o r the j ur y t o c oncl ud e th atOffi ce r Bo nd di dn’ t no ti ce W hi te he ad dur i ngthe twe nt y t o thi r tys ec o nds tha t sh e was y el l i nga nd a c t i n ga g g r e s s i v e l y i n mo v i n gth e c r o wd t o wa r d h i m. The j ur y c o u l d a l s o r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e th a tO ffi c e r B o nd s i mpl y f o r g o tthe r e l a t i v e l y unr e mar k a b l e o ne a nd a hal fm i nute co nver sat i on with Sg t. S tack

. T h e v er d ict d em on st ra te s t h at th e jur y c h os e t o c re d it Lt. S tev ens’ and Sg t. S tack ’ s t est i m ony ove r W hi tehea d’s, Donal d’s, and Fi nkl ey’ s. Thi s wa s n ot unreas onabl e, par ti cul ar l y c o ns i der i ngtha t th e j ur y c o ul d ha ve f o und W h i tehea d’s ver si on o fthe eve nts unbel i evab l e. W hi teh ea d te st if i e d th at sh e a p p ro ac h ed th e s c en e c alm ly even thou gh she w as j us t told by a n e ighbor th at “th ey’re k i l l i n gy o u r s o n . ” F u r th e r, s h e t e s t i fi e d th a tL t
. S te ve ns at te m pte d t o g etbet wee n hera nd Offi ce r Bo nd t o pr ev en t14 N o. 11

- 2225

ana l te r ca ti o n, b utthen L t. S te ve ns , f o r no a ppar en t r e a s on, call ed her a “bitch ” an d arrested her. T he re w ere al so cer tai n in c onsis tenci es and, w hat the j ury m ay have r ea so na bl y b e l i e v e d we r e , e x a g g e r a t i o ns i n t he p lain ti ff’ s ca se ( w hi ch w e don’ t nee d to disc uss) that p oten tia lly m ad e her claim s less cred ibl e. T he j ury cou ld h ave con clud ed that her version of the story s i mpl y di dn ’ ta dd up . I n any eve nt, the i nconsi ste nci es between the offi cer s’ testi m ony do not l ead to the concl usi on that Lt. S tev ens’ and Sgt

. S tack ’ s t est i m ony w as i ncre dib le as a m att er of law . Th e o b j ec tiv e e vid en c e d oe s n ot sh ow th at it w oul d be unre aso nabl e t o bel i eve Lt. S tev ens’ o r Sg t. St ac k’s ve rs ion , no r w a s t h eir te st im on y p h ys ica lly i m po ss ibl e. W hi te he ad r epe at edl y po i nt ed o utthe i nc o nsi ste nci es and w eaknesse s i n the officers ’ te sti m ony to the j ur o r s , a nd i twa s wi thin the i r p r o v i nc e t o de c i de w h os e t e st im on y t o c re d it. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Al ca nt ar, 83 F
. 3d 18 5, 18 9- 90 ( 7th Ci r . 19 96 ) ( st at i ng th at th e incon

sist en c i es i n the w i tness ’ s t est i m ony w er e “ full y a i re d to the j ury on cros s- exam i nati on, but the j ury sti l l chos e to c r edi t [ th e wi tn es s’ s] s to r y ; [t]hatwas a j udg m en t th e j ury w as pri vi l ege d to m ake , and [ the defendant] has pro vi ded us with no ba si s f ordi sturb in g i t. ”)
. “W hen a jur y h as ch os en to cr ed it c ru c ial te st im o n y w ith fu ll k no wl edg e o fthe m an y f au l ts o fthe wi tn es s pr o vi di ng i t, we have no bas i s t o i nter f er e, as the j ury i s the fi nal arbi tero n such questi ons. ” Id. at18 9. W hi t e he a d h a s n’ tar g ue d o n a pp e a l tha ti fwe a c c e pt Lt. S tev ens’ a nd S gt. S tack ’ s t est i m ony that the e vi denceN o. 11

- 2225 15 i s i ns u fficie nt f orthe j ury to fi nd pro babl e ca use f orher ar re st . B ec au se w e fin d th at th e jur y c ou ld co n sid er th eir te st im on y, w e c on c lu d e t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly denie d the pl ai nti ff’ s m oti on f orju d gm ent a s a m att er of law

.
B. M ot i on f orN ew Tr i al W hiteh ead rai ses tw o groun d s in her requ est for a new tr i al: (1) the e vi dence w as aga i nst the m ani f est w ei ght o fthe evi dence; and ( 2) cer tai n evi dence adm i tte d by the di str i ct c ourtsho uld have bee n e x c l u d e d a s u n d u l y p r ej u d i c i a l u n d e r Rul e 4 0 3
. We r e v i e w a mo t i o n f o r n e w t r i a l f o r ab u s e o fd i s c r et i o n. SeeClaret t, 657 F. 3d at 674. “A new tr i al m ay b e gra nted i fthe ver dicti s a gai nst the cl earweight o fthe evi dence orthe tr i alwas unfai r to the m ovi ng par ty. ” Id. ( quotations om itted ). A ne w trial sh ou ld be granted , h ow ever, “onl y when the r eco rd sho w s that the j ury’ s v er dict re sul ted i n a m i scar ri age o fj usti c e or w here the ver dict, o n th e r ec o r d, cr i es o ut to be o ve r tu r ne d o r sh o cks our consci ence. ” Id. ( qu otations om itted ).

1. Agai nst t he M anif estW ei ght ofEvi den ce W he n c o ns i der i ngwheth er the v er di ctwas a g ains t th e m ani f estweight o fthe ev i dence, “the di str i ct c ourthas th e po wer t o g eta g en er als en se o fthe wei g hto fthe e v i d e n c e , a s s e s s i n gth e c r e d ib i l i t y o fth e wi t n e s s e s a nd th e c om p ar at iv e s t re n gt h of th e fa c ts p u t fo rt h attria l.” M e ji a , 6 50 F. 3d at 633. “In conducti ng i ts own as ses s-16 N o. 11

- 2225

m ent o fthe evi dence pres ented, the dist ri c t co urt cannot r em ov e a p iec e o f ev id en c e fro m th e c alc u lu s m er ely be ca us e th e cou rtb el i ev es i t was no t cr edibl e an d the n, w i th thatpi ece excl ud ed, gr an t a m oti on f ora new tr i al beca u se the v er dicti s no w ag ai nst the weight. ” Id. We have al re ady f ound that the di str i ct c ourtcannot disr ega rd the o ffi cer s’ te sti m ony as physi call y i m possibl e o r i nherent l y i ncre dibl e, so the dis tr i ct c ourtwas b ou n d by th e s am e e vid en c e t h e jur y c on s i d er ed in ru lin g on th e m ot ion for n ew tria l. Se ei d. “[A ] c o u r t w i ll setas i de a v er dictas co n tr ar y to the m ani f estweight o f the e vi dence onl y i fno rationalj ury coul d have r e nd e r e d the v e r di c t
. ” M ar cu s & M i l l i ch ap Inv. Se r vs . of Chi. , Inc . v. Sekul ovs ki, 639 F.3d 301 , 313-14 (7th C ir. 20 11 ) (qu ot at ion s o m itt ed ); see a lso G a lva n v . No rberg, 2012 W L 15708 76, * 8 (7th C ir. M ay 7, 2012 ). W hi te he ad r el i es he av i l y o n M eji a i n a r g ui ngtha t th e dist ri ct c ourtappli ed the w ro n g sta nd ar d to her m oti on f ornew tri alby l oo ki ng atthe c ase i n the l i ght m ost fav or abl e t o the defendants i nstea d ofm aki ng an i nd epen dent, ne ut r alde ci si o n b as ed o n the c r edibi l i tyo fthe w itness es an d eviden ce. W hiteh ead ’s read ing of M e j i a, w hi ch pl aces the j u d ge i n the ro l e o fa 13th j uror, i s m i sg ui ded. I n M ej ia , the di st r i ctc o ur t det er m in ed th atthe w ei ght o fthe evi dence ( not necess ar i l y the m a nifest w ei ght) was aga i nst the defendants, but concl ud ed that i t coul d no t set asi de the ver dict unle ss the d efendants’ tes ti m ony contr adic ted indi sputabl e physi calf acts o r l aw s. 65 0 F
. 3d at 633. W e hel d that the “i nd i sp u ta b le f ac ts ” an al y si s com es i nt o pl ayo nl y whenc o ns i der i ng whethe r to r emov e ev i den ce fr o m the c o ur t’ s ev al ua ti o n.N o. 11

- 2225 17 Id. at63 4. Thi s a nal ysi s, w e explai ned, “has n o appli cati on w h en the co urt m er el y weighs the e v i de nc e i t s e l f

. ” Id. ( em phasi s i n or igin al )
. The di str i ct c ourti n that case vi ewe d the e vi den ce i n the l i g htmos t favorabl e to the defe nd ants ( ra th erthan neutra l l y) and concl ud ed that the v er dictco uld notbe set as i de unle ss the e vi dence s u p p or tin g it w as im p os sib le. Id. Be c a us e the po w er to we i g h the e v i de nc e i s n o tl i mi t e d b y s uc h a s t a nd a r d, w e re ve rs ed

. Id. M ej ia stan d s for th e pro p o s ition th at th e d istri ct cou rt mu s t p r o p e r l y e x e r c i s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n we i g h i ng t he evi dence to deter m i ne i fi t’ s a gai nst the m a n if est wei g ht ofev i dence. The di stric t c ourt, however, cannotgr ant a new tr i alj ust b ec au se i t be l i eve s the j ury goti t wrong. Se eLa t i no , 58 F. 3d at 315. “[S ]ince the cr edibi l i ty ofwitne ss es i s p e c u l i a r l y f o r th e j u r y , i ti s a n i n v a s i o n o fthe j ury’ s pro vin c e to gr ant a new tri alm er el y b ecause the ev idence was shar plyi n confl i ct. ” Id. “Even when evi dence i s co ntra dict or y, ‘ [ i ] t’ s th e j ury’ s j ob

— no t th e dist ri ct c ourt ’ s j ob o r the j ob ofa panel o fappel l ate j ud ges

— t o f i g u r e o u t w h o ’ s t e l l i n g t h e t ru th .’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Has s e b r oc k, 66 3 F
. 3d 906, 920 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( quoti ng Low e v. C onsol . F reightway s of D el
. , 17 7 F
. 3d 640, 642–43 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ( “The f act that [ the defendant] p rese n ted eviden ce th at is inc ons istent w ith th e j ury’s ver dictdoes notm ean that the ve rdi ct s hou l d be r ever sed.

. . . The j ury w as ther e; i t wei ghed the w i tness es’ c r e dib i l i t y , c o ns i de r e d the e v i de nc e , a nd r e a c he d a s up p or ta b le c on c lu sio n .”)), petiti o n fo r cert. filed, 8 0 B NA U
. S.L .W
. 3480 (2012). “W e w il l not sup p lant th e j ury’s r ea so nabl e an d f ac tu al l y s uppo r te d v er dict w i tho ur18 N o. 11

- 2225

own j ud gm ent. ” Wipf v. Kowals ki, 5 19 F. 3d 380, 38 5 ( 7th C ir. 2008). The dis tr i ct c ourtacknow l edged thati t was r equi re d to w ei gh the f acts wh en address i ng W hitehead’s m oti on f o r n e w t r i a l a nd c o nc l ud e d: T h e jur or s . . . w er e p re se n te d w ith tw o s h ar p ly confl i cti ng por tr aya l s o fthe ev en ts on J une 20, 2008 , and they were enti tl ed to bel i eve either si de. W hi tehea d t est i fi ed that she w as hara sse d byBo nd a nd S te ve ns a fte r c al m l y i nqui r i ngabo ut he r son, and then w a s t h r o w n in th e back of a [ pri son erwagon] despi te com ply i ng with al l o f the i r o r de r s . Bo nd t e s t i fi e d tha t he ne v e r sa w W hi tehea d at the sc ene, and St eve ns and St ack te st i fi ed th atW hi te he ad ac te d di sr upt i ve l y a nd f ai l ed to f ol l ow the or ders they had i ssued to contr olthe host i l e cro w d that had gather ed. Giv en thi s co nfl ict in g t es tim on y, n on e o f w h ich “co ntra cts in d isp u ta b le p h ys ica l fac ts or law s,”
. . . th e ju ry had a r easo nab l e basi s to fi nd thatthe i nd i vi du al Defe nd ants had pr ob able cause to ar re st W hi tehead and did not use e xcessi ve f or ce in doi ng so . A fter w ei ghing al l oft he evi den ce p resente d at tr i al, the Court find s that thi s i s no t a cas e i n w hi ch

“ n o ra tion al ju ry c ou ld h av e re n d ere d th e v erdict

. ”
. . . Be c a us e the v e r di c twa s n otag ai nst t he m anif estw eightoft he evi den ce , the C ou rt d ec lin es to gra n t W h ite h ea d a n ew tria l. ( emphas i s adde d)

. The di st r i ctj udg e’ s di sc us si o n o fthe evid en ce an d com p arative stren gth of th e fac t s w asn ’tN o. 11

- 2225 19

ex ten sive, bu t w e d o not fa u lt him becau se W hiteh ead ’s ar gum ents on thi s i ssue w er e bri ef and m er el y r efer re d th e c ou rtba c k t o h er arg u m en ts on th e in h er en t in c re d ibi l i ty ofthe offi cer s’ te sti m ony. T h e j ud ge never thel ess , ci ti ng M e

j ia , appli ed the properst andard, understo od h is ro le in w eig h in g t h e e vid en c e, a n d r ely in g on all th e evi den ce , i nc l udi ngthe o ffi ce r s’ t es ti m o ny, c o nc lu d ed th at t h e ju ry h ad a re as on ab le b as is t o fin d in fav or of th e d efe n d an ts
. SeeAldridg e v. Fores t R iver, Inc. , 635 F. 3d 870, 87 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( “This co urt w i l l not ov e rt u rn a j u ry ve rd ict if a re as on ab le b as is e x ist s in th e record to sup p ort i t.”)
. “[ O]nce the di str i ct c ourtappli es th e co rr ect l aw , i ts disc re ti on i s wide a nd o ur r evie w defer enti al

. ” M ej ia , 65 0 F .3d at63 4; s e eal s o Gal van , 2 01 2 W L 1 57 08 76 , * 7 ( “Ou r re vie w of a d ec isio n d en yin g a n ew tria l is “e x tr em ely defe re nti al

. ”)
. “[ T]he d istr i ct c ourti s i n the bestposi ti on to e va l ua te the e vi den ce a nd det er m i ne whethe r the ve r di ctwas a g ainst t he mani f es t wei g ht ; i t he ar d the w i tness es tes ti fy, sa w the e vi dence pres ented, and gained a be tte r appreci ati on o fthe nuances o fthe case than c ou l d be glea n ed from a c old , w rit te nrec or d

. M ej ia , 65 0 F. 3d at 634; s ee also A l dr i dge, 6 35 F
. 3d at8 76

- 77( “T he di st r i ctc o ur t, ha vi ngs ee n the pr es en ta ti o n of the ev i den ce a nd o bs er ve d th e wi tn es se s, i s i n a uni que posi ti on t o rul e o n a ne w tr i alm oti on. ” ( quotati ons om i tte d) )
. B ased on th i s r ec o r d, we ca nno t fi nd tha t th e dist ri ct c ourt, havi ng o bser ved the w i tness es tes ti fy t o thei r diff er ent v er si ons of e vents and havi ng as ses sed thei r cre dibi l i ty, abuse d i ts disc reti on i n concl ud i ng tha t th e j u ry ve rdi ct was notag ai nst the m ani f estweight o f the e vi dence.20 N o. 11

- 2225 2. Ev i den t i ary Ru l i ngs W hi tehea d contends that the di str i ct c ourte rred i n not g r an tinghe r R ule 59 m o ti o n f o r ne w tr i alb ec au se the evid ence adm i tte d at t ri alwas unfai rl y pr ej ud i ci al unde r R u l e 4 0 3
. We a ff o r d s i g n i fi c a n t d e f e r e n c e t o t he tr i alco u rt ’s deci si on wei ghi ng probati ve val ue ag ai nst p rej u d i c e. C erabi o LL C v. Wrigh t M ed. Tech ., Inc ., 41 0 F
. 3d 981, 994 (7th C ir. 2005). “W e r eview the d istri ct cou rt’s ev id en tia ry d ec isio n s fo r ab u se of d isc re tio n an d w ill re ver se onl y where no r eas onabl e per son cou l d take the view a d op ted by the tr i alco urt. ” C lare tt, 65 7 F
. 3d at 669 ( quo ta ti o ns o m i tt ed)

. And e ve n i fthe di st r i ctcou rt er re d, w e wil l notr eve rs e i fthe er ro r w as harm l ess . Id. “A n ew t ria l i s warr anted o nl y i fthe er ro r has a su bsta nt ialand i njurious effect or inf lu en ce on the d eterm i nati on o fa j ury, and the re sul t i s i n c on sis tent w i th substa nti alj usti ce. ” C erabio , 4 10 F. 3d at 994 ( i nter nal citation om itted ). “E vide nt iary errors satisfy th is stand ard onl y wh en a si gni fi cant c hance e xi sts thattheyaff ecte d the o utcom e of th e t ri al

. ” EE O C v. Mgm t
. Hos pi t al i ty of Raci ne, Inc . , 666 F.3d 422 , 440 (7th C ir. 2012).

a. Ev i den ce of D anie l ’ s, J ones’ s, and M ynat t ’ s co nd uct The di st r i ctc o ur t ( o ve r the pl aint i ff’ s obj ec ti o n) adm itt ed tes ti m ony concerni ng ev ents that too k pl ace b efo re W hi tehea d’s ar ri valo n the scene, but agr eed with pla i nti ffthatchar ges o r gui l ty p leas as to Danie l, J ones , and M ynat t sh oul d be e xcl ud ed. W hi tehea d al l ege s that ev i den ce r el at i ngt o Da ni el ’ s, J o ne s’ s, a nd M y na tt ’ s co nd u c t w as irre lev an t a n d h igh ly p rej u d icia l be c au se itN o. 11

- 2225 21

c re at ed a m in i-tr ial-w ith in -a-t ria l an d w as u se d to elic it sym pathy for t he pol i ce a nd to i m pu te Daniel ’ s ba d behavi orto h er . I n al l owing the e vi dence, the dist ri ct cour t e xplai ned that the info rm ati on was r el evantto pr o vi de con te xt, a ss es s Of fi ce r Bo nd’ s te st i m o ny, a nd e v a l ua t e t e s t i mon y ab o utthe mo o d o fthe c r o wd. Evidence i s r elev an t if“i t has any tendency t o m ake a f ac t m o r e o r l es s pr o babl e t ha n i t woul d b e wi th o utthe ev i den ce ; and the f ac t i s o fc o ns eque nc e i n de te r m i ni ng th e acti on. ” F ed. R. Evi d. 401. I n m aki ng thi s dete rm i nati on, “[ w ] e will n ot s ubsti tute [ our] o pini on f orthato f the t ri alj ud ge m er el y b ecause we m ay b e incl i ned to rul e d i ff er entl y o n the questi on o fr el evancy . ” U nited St at e s v. Bor os , 66 8 F
. 3d 901, 90 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12) ( quotatio n s o m itt ed ). Re lev an t e vi d en c e m ay be ex c lu d ed “if i ts proba ti ve val ue i s s ubstanti al l y outw ei ghed by a danger of

. . . unfa i r prej ud i ce . . . .” Fe d . R
. Evi d. 403. R ecogn izi ng that“m ost relevan t evide nc e is , b y i ts very nature , prej ud i ci al, we have e m phasi zed thatev i dence m ust be un

fa i r l y prej ud i ci alto r equi re excl usi on. ” Boros , 66 8 F .3d at90 9 (q u ot at ion s o m itt ed ) (e m p h a s i s in orig inal )
. W e e m plo y a sl i ding scal e a pp ro ach: as the proba ti ve va l ue i nc r ea se s, s o do es o ur t o l eran ce o fthe r i sko fpr ej udice. Id. “ Evi den ce i s unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci ali n the c o nt ex t ofRul e 4 0 3 i f i t wi l l i nd uc e the j ur y t o de c i de the cas e o n an i m properbas i s, co m m onl y a n em oti onalo ne, r ather than o n the evi dence pres ented. ” Com m on v. C i ty of Ch i c ago , 6 61 F. 3d 94 0, 9 47( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1) ( quo ta ti o ns om i tte d). “[ A ] di str i c t court, i n exer ci si ng i ts disc re ti on unde r Rul e 4 03, mustc ar eful l y a na l y ze a nd a ss es s th e prej ud i ci aleff ect ofchal l enged e vi dence. ” U ni t e d States v. Lo ug hry , 660 F.3d 965 , 971 (7th C ir. 2011).22 N o. 11

- 2225 Evidence ofDanie l ’ s, J one s’s, and M ynatt ’ s co nd uct i m m edi ate l y b ef or e W hi tehea d’s ar ri valwas re l evant. “[ O]ne m eas ure ofr el evance i s whether i ts excl usi on woul d l ea ve a c hr o no l o g i ca l a nd c o nc eptua l v o i d i n the sto ry . ” Boros , 66 8 F
. 3d at 908 ( quotati ons om i tte d). Even w here e vid en ce i s no t di re ctl y r el ate d to a di sputed f act, it m a y b e relevant w he n it provid es bac kgrou nd i nform at ion
. Id

. Th e t e stim ony exp lai ne d w hy W hiteh ead ’s nei ghb o r s a i d, “ Th e y ’ r e k i l l i ngy o urs o n, ” wh y Whi t ehe ad hur r i ed t o the s ce ne a nd i nqui r ed ab o uthe r s o n, why appr o xi m at el y e i g ht ee n p ol i ce o ffi ce r s wer e th er e, a nd wh y a s i ze ab l e cr o wd had g athe r ed. Thi s ba ck g r o und i nf o r m at i o n a l lowed th e j ur y t o putW hi te he ad’ s, the o ffi c e r s ’ , a nd the c r o wd’ s c o nd uc ti n con t e xt
. T ha tma de i t r el evant
. The chal l enged e vid ence w as al so re l evantbec ause i t te nde d to m ake the de f en dan ts ’ t es ti m o ny tha t th e c ro w d w as h os tile m or e b elie va b le. Se eCom m on , 66 1 F
. 3d at9 45-46. I fthe j ur o r s ha dn’ t he ar d e vi den ce abo utthe tr affi c st o p, J o ne s fl ee i ng, Da ni el ’ s at tem p t t o fl ee a nd O ff icer Bon d ’s ph ysical al tercat ion w ith him , or M yn att’s r efus alt o o be y po l i ce o r der s an d s ub seq ue ntfl i g ht giv in g ris e t o a p olic e c h as e, t h ey w ou ld h av e h ad little ba si s to unde r st an d why peo pl e wer e g athe r ed ar o und y e l l i nga nd wh y the o ffi c e r s h a d r e a s o nab l e g r o un ds to prom ptly m ai ntai n contr olo fthe cro w d. The evi dence al so made Of fi ce r Bo nd’ s te sti m ony tha t he was pr eo cc up ied w i th Daniel eve n after Daniel w as secur ed in the s quad carm or e be l i evab l e. A ccor dingl y, we fi nd thatev i dence ofDanie l s’ , J ones ’ s, an d M y na tt ’ s co nduc t ( save t es ti m o ny c o nc erni ngtheN o. 11

- 2225 23

cr ac kc o ca i ne whi chwe wil l di sc us s sh o r tl y ) r el ev an t i n prov i ding the j uror s nec ess ar y b ackg ro und infor m ati on a nd prob at ive i n thei r ass ess m ent o fthe offi cer s’ cre dibi l i ty. A l though the di strict court onl y a dd re sse d W hi te he ad’ s co nc erns o fundu e pr ej udi ce b r i efl y , we fi nd no r ev er sibl e er r o r . W e g i ve “ spe ci alde f er en ce ” to the d ist ric t c ou rt ’s e vid en tia ry find in gs p u rs u a n t to R u le 40 3, s e eCom m on , 661 F.3d at94 6, an d w e h av e n o b as is to seco nd

- guess the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent he re . Evidence that cra ck coca i ne was f ound in Daniel ’ s ca r is m or e p ro b lem at ic. T h e d efe n d an ts arg u e t h at th is evi dence w as re l evant to Daniel ’ s and Jo nes’ s i ncenti ve to fl ee. T h e di str i ct c ourtdi d not a dd re ss thi s e vi dence sepa r at el y a nd we ar e tr o ubl ed bythe e vi dence’s m i ni m alp ro b ativ e v al ue i n re l ati on t o the dange r of u n fair p rej u d ice . B u t e ve n if th e d i s t r i c t co u rterr ed in a d mi t t i n gth i s e v i d e n c e , w e c o n c l u de th a t i tw a s h a r mles s. Se eCe r ab i o, 41 0 F
. 3d at 994. The dis tr i ct c ourtcould have gi ven a l i m i ti ng i nstr ucti on to hel p al l evi ate any unfai r prej ud i ce, but W hi tehea d didn’tr equest s u ch an i nstr ucti on a nd so none w as giv en . See U nited Sta tes v. Su gg s, 374 F .3d 50 8, 51 7- 18 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( no e rror w here the dist ri ct c ourtf ai l ed to g i ve l i m i tingi ns tr ucti on s ua s po nt e)
. Ev enwi th o utthe i ns tr uct i o n, ho wev er, the pa r ti es t o l d the j ury tha t th e ca se was n ot aboutDa ni elo r whathe di d, i t was abo ut W hi te he ad an d he r c o nduc t. W hi te he ad’ s cou ns ele xpla i ned i n cl osing tha t i t was i m port ant for the j ury to k no w w hy W hiteh ead an d the o ffi ce r s wer e atthe scene, but Danieli s a n ad u lt an d his co nd uct ca nnot be24 N o. 11

- 2225 att ributed to hi s m othe r. T h e j ury al so hear d evi dence th atW hi te he ad was a pr o f es si o na l wi tha s te adyjob a nd no cr i m i nal rec or d

. N othi ng i n the re cor d i nd i cate s that the j ury w oul d have a ttr ibuted Danie l ’ s ba d acts, i nc l ud i ngh i s p o s s e s s i o n o fc r a c kc o c a i ne , t o W hi t e he a d. I n l i ght o fLt. St eve ns’ and S gt. St ack’ s tes ti m ony ofW hi tehead’s co nd uct pro vi ding probabl e cause f orherar re st, an d the b ac k g r o und i nf o r m at i o n o fDa ni el ’ s, J o ne s’ s, a nd M ynatt ’ s conduct thatwas proper l y a dm i tte d, W hi tehea d hasn’ t s how n that th er e w as a s i gni fi cant c hance that th e c ra c k c oc ain e e vid en c e a ffec te d th e o u tc om e o f th e t ria l.

b. Evi den ce o fhig h-vi ol ent- cr i m e a r ea W hi t e he a d s o ught t o b a r r e f e r e nc e t o the 8 0 0 b l ock o f S o uth La ve r g ne a s a hi g h- cr i m e ar ea, a r g ui ngtha t th e ev i d en ce h ad no f o unda ti o n, ha d l i m i te d r el ev an ce , a nd was hi g hl y pr ej udi ci al

. I ni ti al l y , we co nc lud e tha t th e dist ri ct c ourtdi d n ot abuse i ts disc re ti on i n rul i ng tha t a pro per fo und ati on w as l ai d fo r Offi cerBond, Lt. S tev ens, an d Sgt . Sta c k t o t es tify , ba se d on th eir ex p er ien c e p at ro ll i ng the ar ea f orse ver alye ar s, thati t was a high -viol entc rim e a re a. See U nite d State s v. B askin , 40 1 F
. 3d 788, 79 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) ( st at i ngtha t “ spec i fi c dat a” e st ab l i sh i ng th at a location is a “h igh-crim e area” is not requ ired). W e a l so fi nd thatthe evi de n c e had so m e r el evance . Co nt r a r y t o Whi t e he a d’ s a s s e r t i o ns , a n o ffi c e r ’ s s up port ed op i ni on that a n ar ea i s a hi gh- vi ol ent- cri m e a re a c an be co n sid er ed in a p ro b ab le c au se an a l y s is. See C arm ichael v. Vill
. of Palatine, Ill
. 6 0 5 F
. 3 d 4 5 1 , 4 5 7( 7thN o. 11

- 2225 25

B oth p arties assu m e tha t W hiteh ead ’ s seizu re am ou n t e d to 1 an arre st, but w hether her shortdetent io n i n the pris oner w agon qu ali fie s as an arre strequiring p robab le caus e i s debatabl e. S ee U ni t ed Sta t es v. Bu l l ock, 63 2 F .3d 100 4, 101 6 (7th C ir . 20 1 1 ); see also U n ited Sta tes v . T il m o n , 19 F. 3d 1221, 1228 (7th C ir. 19 94 ) (“[I] t is no t n e c e ss a rily im p ro p er to d etain sus pects i n a p oli ce car du ri ng som e kinds ofi nvesti gatory st ops. ”)
. Som e forc e m ay be reas onab le du ri ng an invest igat ory s t op whenthe c i rc um s t anc es give ris e t o a j us t i fi abl e f ea r f or p er so n a l sa fet y o n th e p a rt o f th e o ffic e r. Je w et t v. A n ders , 521 F. 3d 818, 824- 25 ( 7th Cir

. 2008) . T h is i ss ue w asn’ t r ais ed by the def endan ts , t houg h, and thus, i s not an i ss ue w e need to e xplore. Cir
. 20 10) ( “[ P]r obab l e ca use depends not on t h e facts as ano m ni sc i en t o bs er ve r woul d pe r ce i ve the m b uto n the f acts as theywould have appeared t o a r eas onable per so n in th e po sitio n o f the a rrestingo

f ficer

— see i ng wh at h e saw, hear i ng wh at he hear d.” ) ( em phasi s i n or i gi n al) ( quo ta ti o ns o m i tted)

. W he n c o nduc t i s ta k i ngpl ac e i n a hi gh- cri m e a re a, the chara c teri sti cs o fthe l oca ti on m ay be on e factor officers cons ide r un d er the tota li ty of circ um sta nces w hen detai ni ng so m eone . Se eU ni t e d S t at es 1 v. Jac ks on , 300 F.3d 74 0, 74 6 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); see also U nite d State s v. O gles by, 597 F. 3d 891, 894 ( 7th Cir. 2010 ); U nited Sta tes v. H um ph ries , 37 2 F
. 3d 653, 65 7 ( 4th C ir. 2 00 4). Fo r th is fa c to r to ca rry w eig h t, th er e s h ou ld be a reason abl e c onn ection betw een the n eighbo rhood ’s high er crim e rate an d the facts rel ied u p on to su p p ort p ro b ab le c au se . See, e . g., U nite d State s v. Tinnie, 62 9 F
. 3d 749, 758 (7th C ir. 2011) (H am il ton, J
. , dissen ting).26 N o. 11

- 2225 H er e, the r e was a c o nne ct i o n. L t. S te ve ns was c o nce r ne d no t j us t wi th W hi t e he a d’ s b e ha v i o r, b ut a l s o with th ato fthe o th erpe o p le in the c r o wd ( who he te st ified W h ite h ea d w as ins tig a t i n g ) . In p ar t, be c au se it w as a hi gh

- vi ol ent- cri m e a re a, the see m i ngl y a gi tat ed cr o wd posed a g r ea te r thr ea t to the o ffi ce r s sa f ety , who f e a r e d tha tv i o l e nc e wa s mo r e l i kel y t o e ns ue i fp r o mpt actionwas n’ t ta k ent o di spe r se the c r o wd. The o ffi cers coul d r eas onabl y consi der the chara cter i sti cs ofth e are a i n ass ess i ng the si tuati on a nd deci ding w hat a cti on t o ta ke to m ain ta in co n tr ol. T h e e vid en c e w as rele va n t, bu t itw as als o p rej u d icia l. A s w e have sai d though, m ostr el evantev i dence i s pre j ud i ci al, so the i ssue i s whether i t was unf ai r l y p rej u d icia l. W e c a nn o t fi nd tha t the di s t r i c t c o ur t a b us e d i ts w i de disc retio n in a dm i tti ng the ev i dence. N ei therparty s ugges ts that the pr obab l e ca use i nstr ucti on t o the j u rywas an i na ccu rate stat em en t of th e la w and thu s the j ury w as p r o p er ly gu id ed . Fu rt h er , W h ite h ea d an d D on ald tes ti fi ed that the ne i ghborhood i s m ostl y c om prom i sed ofgood har dw or ki ng hom eowners and ret i re d ci ti zens. Donal d desc ribed the bl ock as “[ m ] ost l y bungal ows, re tir ed p eo p le, eld er ly p eo p le, . . . w or kin g c las s p eo p le . .

. I t ’ s a mi ddl e c l a s s n e i g hb o r ho o d. ” De f e ns e c o un sel didn’tr efu te this m or e s peci fi c descr i pti on o fthe bl ock

. W e do not fi nd thatthe dist ric t c ou rtabuse d i ts disc r e t i o n i n a l l o wi ngthe j ur y t o h e a r the p a r t i es’ d iffer in g p er c ep tio n s o f th e a re a.N o. 11

- 2225 27 I I I . Concl usio n Fo r the r eas ons sta ted, we A F F I R M th e d istr ict cou rt’s j ud gm ent.

5- 21- 12