## 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. 08

- 3736 K EV IN F OXa nd M ELISSAF OX, P la intif fs-A pp ellees, v. E D W ARD H AYES, M ICHAELG UIL FOYLE, S CO TTS WEARENGEN, B RAD W ACHTL, a nd W IL L C OUN TY, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts, v. A MERI CAN A LT ERNAT I VE I NS URANC E C OR PO RA T I ON a nd E S S EXI NS URANC E C OMPAN Y, Interv eno rs-A pp ella nts.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 04 C7309

—Jo hn W. Darrah, Judge
.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 9, 2009

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 7, 2010

Befo re F LA UM, E VANS, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges .2 N o. 08

- 3736 E VANS, Cir cu i tJudg e . T h e c en tr al e v e n t u n d er lyin g t h is cas e e v o k e s wh a ti s s ur e l ye v e r y p a r e nt ’ s mo s tv i scer al fear. In th e e arly m orning h ou rs of Jun e 6 , 2004, three-yearo l d R i l e y F o x wa s t a k e n fr o m h e r h o me i n Wi l mi n g to n, Illino is. Sh e w as bo u n d w ith d u c t t ap e, se x u ally ass aul ted, and drowned i n a c re ek. Ri l ey’ s par ents, K ev in an d M elis sa Fox , claim th at in t h e m id st of th eir ef f or t s t o c o pe wi th thi s t r a uma , l o c a l de t e c t i v e s s ubj ec te d the m t o a who l e ne w ni g ht m are. A cc o r di ngt o the F o xe s, th e d efend an ts fram ed K evin for Ril ey’s m urd er, co er ce d hi m unt i l he a greed to a “ co nfes si o n” tha t th e det ec ti ve s co nc o ct ed, a nd c au se d hi m t o b e j ai l ed ( an d f aci ng the death penal ty) o n a c harg e o ffi rs t- degre e m urder. The pro secuto r eve ntual l y dro pp ed the charg e a ft e r D NA t es ti ng e x c l u d e d Ke v i n a s th e d o n o r o fD NA f o und o n Ri l ey ’ s bo dy. I n the mean ti m e, Kev i n s pen t ei g ht m o nths i n j ai l, s epa r at ed f r o m hi s g r i ev i ngwi fe an d se ve n -ye ar -old so n, w h ile h is re p u ta tio n in t h e s m all co m m uni tywher e the y l i ve d w as tho r o ug hl y sm ea r ed. To th is day, no one else ha s been ch arged w ith Riley’s m urd er. A l m osti m m ed iatel y a fterhi s a rr est, Kevi n and M el i ssa bro ught thi s m ult i

- count, m ult i -p ar ty l aw sui t under 42 U

. S. C. § 1 983 and I l l i noi s l aw , cl ai m i ng tha t W ill Cou nty de t e c t i v e s Ed wa r d Ha y e s , Mi c ha e l Gu i l f o y l e, Sco tt Sweare ngen, Brad W achtl, J ohn Ruetti ger( w ho di ed bef or e the tr ial ) , and sev er alo therpart i es w ho have sinc e se tt l ed o r be en di smi ss ed f r o m the s ui t, a r r es te d a nd pros ecuted Kevi n w i thout probabl e cause and in vi ol ati on ofhi s due pro cess r i ghts. The co m pla i nt al so i ncl ud es c ounts ofco nspir acy, f al se i m pri sonm ent, i ntenti onalN o. 08

- 3736 3 i nfl i cti on o fem oti onaldi str ess ( I I ED ) , and ( f orM elis sa) loss o fc o ns o r tium . I t so ug htb o thc o m pen sa to r y a nd pu ni ti ve dam ag es . Three ye ar s a nd m ult i ple di sposi ti ve m o ti o ns l at er, the c as e wentt o t r i al

. A fte r s i x wee k s, the j ur y r etur ne d v er di ct s i n f av o r o fthe F o xe s agai ns t th e fi ve nam ed de fen dan ts o n a l l b utthe c o ns pi r ac y a nd f al se i m pri sonm ent c l ai m s. I n i ts ass ess m ent o fdam ages, the j ury’ s v er dicti n f avo r ofKevi n l oo ked l i ke thi s:

De fendant Du e

Pr o ce ss Fals e

A rres t Mali

cious Pr o secuti on II ED Punitiv eDamages Tot als

H ayes 500000 500000 300000 500000 1500000 3300000 Swearengen 500000 500000 300000 500000 1500000 3300000

Gui lfoyle 300000 500000 0 200000 400000 1400000 Wachtl 300000 100000 0 200000 100000 700000 Es t ate of Rue ttige r 100000 100000 0 200000 200000 600000

Tot al 1700000 1700000 600000 1600000 3700000 93000004 N o. 08

- 3736 OnMel i s s a ’ s c l a i ms the j ur y f o un d:

De fendant Los s of

Consortium II ED Punitive Dam ages To t als H ayes 1000000 1000000 1000000 3000000 Swearengen 1000000 1000000 2000000

Gu ilfoyle 300000 200000 500000 Wachtl 300000 200000 500000 Es ta te of Ru ettige r 100000 100000 200000

To t als 2700000 1000000 2500000 6200000

The g r a nd t o t a l o fthe da mag e s a wa r de d t o the F o xes w as $15.5 m i l l i on. On m oti ons afterve rdi ct, the dist ri ct c ourtst ruck al l o fthe pu ni ti ve dam age s a w ar ded to M el i ssa ( $2. 5 m i l l i on) and the pu ni ti ve dam age s ass es sed ag ai nst W achtl( $100 , 000) o n K evi n’s cl ai m s. I n additi on, the dist ri ct c ourt e n te re d an or der m em ori al i zi ng the part i es’ ag re em ent that the j ud gm ent a gainst the Esta te ofJ ohn Rue tt igerwas sat i sfi ed and the ca se ag ains t i t was di smi ss ed. A ll o fthi s ha s l eft th e re m ain in g t ab at$1 2,2 00 ,00 0. It is t h at su m th at is in pla y a s the f our nam ed defe nd ants

— Ha y e s , S we a r e ng en, Gu i l f oyl e, and W achtl

— ap p ea l. Ove r the c o ur se o fthe l o ng trial, the de fen dan ts a nd th e F o xe s pr es en te d dr as ti ca l l y di ffer en t ve r si o ns o ftheN o. 08

- 3736 5

ev en ts su rro u n d in g K ev i n ’ s a rre st an d p ro se c u tio n . In bro ad str oke s, thi s i s the defe nd ants’ ver si on. Fr om day o ne , Kev i n’ s be ha vi o r r ai se d r ed fl ag s th atmade th e defen dan ts su spe ct he was i nv o l ve d i n Ri l ey ’ s d ea th

. A fte r in ve st iga tin g f or fou r m on th s, K ev in w as th eir onl y s uspect. I n Octobe r they bro ught Kevi n i n f orquesti o ni ng, ho pi ngthat he c o ul d r es o l ve the i r c o nc erns . I nst ea d , he m ad e s ta te m en ts th at fu rt h er h eig h te n ed th eir suspi ci ons. W h en Kevi n nonethel ess deni ed i nvol vem en t, th e d e t e c t i v e s s u g g e s t e d h e t a k e a p o l y g r a p h e xam i na t i o n. He di d s o v o l un t a r i l y a nd f a i l e d. T he i r s us p icio n s fu r t h er rais ed , th e d efe n d an ts qu es tio n ed h im f o r s ev er almor e ho ur s, unt i l Kev i n a dm i tt ed th athe ac ci den ta l l y k i l l ed Ri l ey . K evin expl aine d tha t o n the ni gh t ofRi l ey’ s death he a cci dental l y hi t heri n the head wi ththe b athr o om doo r . Think i nghe ha d k i l l ed he r, he panick ed. I nstea d ofcal l i ng the pol i ce o r an am bul ance o r a f a mi l y me mbe r, Ke v i n b o un d Ril ey w i th du c tt a pe to m ak e it loo k l i ke a m urder and l eft heri n the cre ek, w h e r e s h e d r o w n e d

. T h e d e fe n d a n t s h a d K e v i n m e mor iali z e h i s st at em en t o n vid eo an d th en arr es te d h im for th e m urd er of his d au gh ter. Bec au se atthi s st ag e we r ev i ew the e vi den ce i n the ligh t m os t fav or ab le t o t h e F ox es , s e eSta ub v. Pr oc t orHos p. , 560 F.3d 647, 651 (7th Cir. 2009), w ha t fol low s a r e m ore p ar tic u lar d et ails of th eir ve rs ion of th es e e ve n ts . In Ju n e 2 00 4, K ev i n a n d M elis sa w er e liv in g w ith th eir c h ild re n, Rile y a n d six -ye ar -old T yle r, in W ilm in gt on , a small t o wn l o ca te d i n a r ur ala r ea abo ut6 0 m i l es s o uthw esto fChica go. Kevi n w as a uni on paint er and M el i ssa s t a y e d h om e w ith th e k id s. K ev in to ok p rid e in h is6 N o. 08

- 3736 ab ilitie s a s a d ad , an d h e a n d R iley w er e p ar tic u lar ly c lose. M el i ssa and K evi n both gr ew up i n W i l m i ngto n an d h ad an ex te n d ed n e t w o r k of fam ily an d frien d s in to w n . W ilm in gt on is th e k in d of p lac e w h er e c rim e is rare and peo p le r eg u la r ly leave th eir hom es an d cars un locked

. Th e Foxe s w e re no ex cep tion. T he y often left thei r f ro nt doorunl ock ed, and al th ou gh the l ocko n thei r back d oo r h ad been bro ken form onths, theyneve r both ered to fi x i t. I ns tead , th ey kep t a stac k of la u n d ry b a s k e t s i n f r o nto fthe b a c kdo o r t o k e e p i tc l o s e d. On June 5, 2004, a Saturday, M el i ssa w as i n Chicag o w i th som e fri ends to part i ci pate in a tw o-d ay w al k t o ra i se m o ne y f o r b reast ca nc err es ea r ch

. Kev i n t o o kc ar e o fthe chi l dren that a fternoon a nd then d ro p ped them o ffat the W i l m i ngto n hom e o fM el iss a’ s m othe r, wh o had ag re ed to w at c h th e k id s w h ile h e a t te n d ed a c on c er t in Chi ca g o wi thM el iss a’ s br o th er, To ny Ro ss i
. Kev i n a nd T ony drov e the Fox es’ Ford E scap e to the con cert, w he re K ev i n dr an kabo uts i x b ee r s. Af te r the c o nc er t was o ve r, ar o und 1 0: 30 p. m . , Kev i n a nd To ny wentt o a l o ca l r es ta ur an t wi tha no th erfr i en d. Kev i n was s o be r whenhe a nd T o n y l e ftfo r Wi l mi n g t o n a n h o u r l a t e r . A r o u n d 1 2 : 5 0 a . m. they ar r i ve d b ac ka t th e Ro ss i s’ ho us e, wher e Ty l era nd Ril ey w er e s l eepi ng in the l i vi ng r oo m . Kevi n w anted to b rin g t h e c h ild re n h om e s o h e c ou ld ge t t h e m u p ea rly the ne xt m orn in g a nd tr avelto Chica go i n ti m e t o see M elis sa finis h h er p ar t i c i p a tio n in t h e w alk . A p p ar en tly the k i ds w er e l oo ki ng f or w ar d to the t ri p to Ch i cago : they had gone to an a rt sup plyst or e with thei r f atherthat Saturday afternoon, w here he pu rchas ed thre e p ost er b o a r d s a n d o th e r s u p p l i e s ; th e y w e n th o me a n d ma deN o. 08

- 3736 7 si g ns t o ho l d up whi l e wat ch ing the i r mothe rfi ni shthe w al k. A t the Rossi hom e l ate r that ni ght, Tony h elped K evi n getthe chi l dren i nto the c ar, and K evin drov e them hom e. B efor e l eaving f orChica go, M el i ssa had l eft the childr en ’ s be d s he et s in th e dr y er . W he n Ke vin b r o ug htthe ki ds i n that ni ght he was too tired to m ake thei r beds, so he put Ty l er to sl ee p o n an o tt o m an an d Ri l ey on the c ou c h . Th ey w er e w ith in a few fee t o fe a c h o th er in th e l i vingr o o m . Thi s was n’ t anunc o m m o n s l ee pi ng ar r an g ement

— th e F ox es so m et im es letth e c h ild re n fall as l ee p wat ch i ngTV i n the l i vingr o o m . Af te r the chi l dren were sl eepi ng, Kevi n w en t ou tsi de and sm oke d a ci g ar et te o n the po r ch

. H e retur ne d i ns i de, wat ch ed TV i n hi s be droo m , t u rned hi s f an o n hi gh, and fel l as l eep a r o u n d 2 : 3 0 a . m. K evi n awoke a ro und 7: 50 the ne xt m or ni ng wh en T yl er cam e into hi s r oo m and to l d h i m thatRi l ey w as gone . T he ki d s often p layed hid e-and -seek, so K evin d idn ’t p an ic. H e w en t to the li ving room , w he re he saw Ri le y ’s bl an kets ti l l o n the c o ucha nd the fr o ntdo o r o pen( he ass um ed Tyl ero pened itl oo ki ng f orRi l ey)

. H e s tar ted c a l l i n g R i l e y ’ s n a me a n d l o o k e d c a r e fu l l y i n h e r r o o m, whi ch was o ve r r un wi th to y s an d ha d am p le h i di ng spots
. A fterse ar chi ng the bedr oo m , he s pent se ver al mo r e mi n u t e s s e a r c h i n gth e c h i l d r e n ’ s t o y r o o m. He then went back to the l i vi ng r oo m and ki tchen a nd l oo ked o ut the b a c k wi nd o w t o s e e i f s he wa s i n the ba c k y a r d. She w asn ’t. A fte r abou t 15 m inu tes, his sense of alarm gr owing, Kevi n sta rted w al ki ng to hi s nei ghbor ’ s ho use,8 N o. 08

- 3736 b u t h e d ec id ed it w as t o o e a r ly to rin g t h e d oo rb ell. I nstea d, he r etur ned hom e a nd cal l ed the nei ghbor o n the t el ephon e. They hadn’ t s een Ri l ey. Kevi n sta rt ed to panic now and beg an a m or e ur gent se ar ch ofthe house. A b ou t 4 0 m i nutes a fterTyl erwoke hi m up, Kevi n cal l ed the pol ice . H e ca l l ed 411 i nstea d of91 1 be cause he kne w he woul d g etthe po l i ce thr o ug h 4 11, an d he tho ug ht 91 1 was f o r e xt r eme e m er g en ci es . At tha t po i nt, he w as te llin g h im se lf th at R iley w as h i d i n g an d w ou ld e v e ntua l l y b e f o un d. The dis patcherwh o re c eived K evi n’s 41 1 ca l l was a l oca l pol i ce offi cerw ho sai d, “A re you kidding m e?” w hen K evi n to ld him thatRi l ey w as m i ssi ng. The o ffi cerdro ve to the F o x r es i den ce , wher e he j o i ne d Kev i n in s ea r ch i ng the ho use. S oo n other pol i ce o ffi cer s s tar te d to ar ri ve, and they tol d K evi n to waito utsi d e. W or d ofthe si tuat i o n g o to u tf a s t, a nd Me l i s s a ’ s a n d K e v i n ’ s f a mi l y me mber s s tar ted to ar ri ve. A pol i ce officerto l d K evi n not to ca l l M el i ssa an d wor r y he r, s o he di dn’ t. I ns te ad, he bega n w alki ng aroun d the n eighbo rhood , calling Riley’s na m e. W hi l e he was o utwal k i ng, M el i ss a ca l l ed Kev i n, who was c ar r y i nghi s ce l l pho ne . H e st ar te d c r y i nga nd to l d M el i ssa th at Ri l eywas mis sing . M el i ss a, who a t th e ti m e was o n a s tr ee t i n C hi ca g o wi thhe r fr i en ds an d hund re ds ofo therwalk er s, co l l apsed at the ne w s. H er f ri end p i cked up the phone and ar ra nged to ge t M el i ssa to W i l m i ngto n as quick l y a s p os sib l e. On the way hom e, M el i ss a spo k e wi thhery o ung erb r o th er, M i ch ae l, who w as co n fu s e d and told he r that h e thou gh t the ki d s w ere sti l l atthe Rossi s’ house

.N o. 08

- 3736 9 W hen M el i ssa ar ri ved back i n W i l m i ngto n the a re a w as overru n w ith p oli ce an d neighb ors w ho w ere he lping w ith th e search

. She foun d K evin in th e yard across the stree t from their ho u s e, an d police offi cers he ar d he r s ayto hi m , “ Di d y o u do s o m ethi ngs tu pi d?” a nd “You bet ternot b e l yi ng to m e. ” M el i ssa te sti fi ed that sh e sa i d tho se thin gs be ca us e th er e was s o much c o nfus i o n ab ou t wher e Ri l eymightb e an d s he tho ug ht K evi n m i ght ha ve caused a f al se al ar m . S he te sti fied that K evi n had not a l w ays bee n tr uthfulwith he r and that she thought he m i ght no t be f or thcom i ng with i nfo rm ation th at he knew w ou ld be p ainful forher to hea r. The pol i ce acti vate d an “A m berA l er t” ar ound 2: 30 that af t e r n o o n, b u tn o tl o n ga ft e r th e y d i d , s e a r c h e r s f o und Ril ey’ s bo dy fl oat i ng i n a c re ek i n a ne arb y for es t pr eserve. N o on e t o ld the Fox es. I ns tead , police offi cers ask ed them to co m e t o the W i l m i ngto n pol i ce s tat i on t o be inter vi ew ed abo ut Ri l ey’ s di sappeara n c e; the Foxe s di d s o wi l l i n g l y . Atth e s t a t i o n, o ffi c e r s s e p a r a t e d the coupl e a nd questi oned them ind ependentl y. They ques

ti oned M el i ssa m ost l y about K evi n. A fterabo ut an hour, Kevi n and M el i ssa we re reuni ted. By that point, o ffi c e r s h a d i n f o r me d K e v i n ’ s f a th e r th a tR i l e y ’ s b o dy wa s f o u n d , a n d the y a s k e d h i m t o b r e a kth e n e ws t o Ke v i n and M e l i s s a . Whe n he di d, Ke v i n c o l l a ps e d, th ens ta r te d s cr ea m i nga nd h itti ngthe wal l s. The pol i ce di d not t el l the f am i l y that Ri l ey had been sexual l y a ssa ult ed orthatherbo dy had bee n found w i th du ct t ape o verthe m outh a nd ar m s. The ne xtda y the F o xe s r etur ne d t o the po l i ce s ta ti o n, w here theyal l owed the pol i ce t o tak e thei r fi nger pri nts10 N o. 08

- 3736 and to col l ect thei r DN A . T h ey als o w er e intro du ced to Sco tt Sweare ngen, a W il l County dete cti ve w ho was as si g ne d as the l ea d i nv es ti g at o r o n the c as e. Al th o ug h the F o xe s di dn’ t k no w i t atthe t i m e, fr o m the mom enthe saw Ril ey’ s bo dy fl oat i ng i n the cre ek, S w ear en gen theori zed thather d eath w as an acc i dent cov er ed up to l oo k lik e a m u rd er by so m eo n e w h o kn ew h er . B u t h e t old th e F o xe s tha t he was f o cus i ngo n a the o r y tha t th e m urder w as com m i tte d as a n ac t ofr eve nge b y som eone wh o m i ght ha ve been up setwith th em . Because no o ne to l d t h em a b out the s exual as saul t, the Foxe s di d no t que st i o n h i s st at ed appr o ac h. On June 2 2, 20 04, 16 d ays aft erRi l ey’ s bo dy w as disc over ed, S w ear engen as ked the Foxe s t o tak e Tyl erto a f aci l i ty that he sa i d o ffer ed f re e counsel i ng. A t the f aci l i ty th ey m etw ith M ar y Ja n e P lu th , w h o in tr od u c ed h e r se lf as a co unsel orand so ught the Fo x es’ per m i ssi on t o ask Ty l e r ifh e w oke u p a ta l l o n the n i g hto fR i l e y ’ s di s a ppeara nce. T h ey gave thei r perm i ssi on a nd Kevi n si gned a co ns en t f o r m , whi chhe di d no t r ea d. I fhe ha d, he w ou ld h ave l ear ned that Pl uth’s pl an was to co nd uct a vi deotaped vi cti m se nsi ti ve i nter vi ew (V SI ) , wh i ch Sweare ngen a nd ano th er W i l lCounty dete cti ve, Brad W ach tl, w ou ld w atch from a n o t he r room . Th e goal ofa V SI is to ex tr ac t h elp fu l info rm at ion fr o m a vu ln er ab le wi tn es s to a ss i sti n a c r i m i na l i nv es ti g at i o n. T h e jur y w as allow e d t o w at c h th e v id eo of T yle r’s V SI. The vi deo s how s that Pl uth ask ed Tyl er m or e th an 20 ti m es a nd i n m yri ad way s whethe r Kev i n h ad l eft th e ho us e o n the ni g hto fRi l ey ’ s disap p ear an ce . Ty l era n-N o. 08

- 3736 11

sw ered “no” repe titi vely, althou gh h e becam e m ore an d m or e ups eta nd wi th dr awn o ve r the c o ur se o fthe interview and e nd ed up gi ving som e ans w ers tha twe r e e qu i v o c a l a nd c o nt r a di c t o r y . T he v i de o e nd s w it h six-year-old T yler crying an d asking for his p arents. A n expertwitnes s cal l ed by the F oxes tes ti fi ed at tr i al th at no u seful i nform ation cou ld be gained from that i nt ervie w , an d P lu th co n c ed ed as m u c h attria l. Li tt l e ha pp en ed i n the i nv es ti g at i o n dur i ngthe r emai nde r o fthe s ummer, b uts e v e r a l thing s h a pp e ne d in S e ptem ber 2004 that m a d e the Foxes dou bt Sw earen gen ’s hand l i ng o fthe case . Fo r one thi ng, M el i ssa te sti fi ed that she lea rn ed fro m a f ri end that a chi l d w as abducted f ro m herhom e in L aPor te, I nd i ana, o n Se ptem ber12

. An a b d u c t i o n f r o m th e h o me , o f c o u r s e , wa s wha t th e Foxe s thought had happened to Ril ey. M el i ssa r ep or ted th e ma t t e r t o S we a r e ng e n a nd a s k e d h i m t o l o o ki nt o i t. S he was s ur pr i se d he ha dn’ t l ea r ne d o fi t h i m se l fa nd di dn’ t th i nkhe s ho wed a l o t o fi nt er es t i n inv es ti g at i ng if th er e w as a p o t e n t i al c on n ec tio n . N ex t, a frie n d to ld M el i ssa thattheyhad see n pol i ce dr i vi ng the Fo xes’ F o r d E s c a pe

— whi chthe F o xe s had t r ade d i n a fte r the m urder because i t r em i nd ed th em of Ril ey

— past a M o bi l g as s ta ti o n. Lat er, M el i ss a woul d l ea r n tha t th e det ec ti ve s ha d i den ti fi ed a spo r t ut i l i tyv eh i cl e ( S UV) on th e M obilst ati on’ s s urve i l l ance v i deo attwo poi nts i n the ear l y m or ni ng hour s o fR i l ey’ s di sappeara nce. They w er e dri vi ng the Foxes’ SU V past the stati on to s ee i fthey co ul d m atch i t to the c aro n the t ape . F i na l l y, s o m eo ne ti pp ed offKevin t o a r um orthatRi l ey had been k i l l ed as part ofa m oto rcy cl e g ang ini ti ati on , and wh en he cal l ed12 N o. 08

- 3736 Sweare ngen t o tel l hi m , he f ound the dete cti ve’ s r esponse d isap p ointing. Sw earen gen sen t R ue ttiger to get m ore det a i l s fr o m Ke v i n a b o utthe t i p, b utn o o ne e v er f o l l o we d u p o n the l e a d. The F o xe s’ do ubt s wer e ab at ed f o r a br i efmom en t ar ound 7 p. m . o n Octobe r 26 , 20 04, wh en S w ear engen cal l ed and asked t h em to co m e down to the sta ti on t o talk ab ou t a break in the case. K evin an d M eli ssa w ere ex cited ; th ey d rove to th e station th inking t h e y w ere a b o utt o l e a r n w hath a d h a pp e ne d t o R i l e y . T he i r h o pe diss ol ved shor tl y a ftertheyar ri ved. They were l ed thro ugh thr ee l ock ed door s a nd then i ntro du ced for th e firs t t im e t o E d H ay es , a su p er vis or rec en tly as si g ne d t o Ri l ey ’ s ca se . Foll o wi ngthe i nt r o duct i o n the F o xe s wer e se par at ed; M el i ss a was t ak ent o a wai ting ar ea an d to l d th at Gui l f o y l e woul d be r i g ht wi th her, and Sw ear engen an d W achtlto ok K evi n to an inter ro gation room
. U nb ekn o w n st to K evin, som e 30 oth er officers w ere w atch ing the i nt errogation room by video m onitor. A ftergi ving M i r anda w arning s, S w ear engen ask ed K evi n i fhe k i l l ed Ri l ey orif h e knew wh o did, and w hen K ev i n s a id “n o,” Sw ea re n ge n be ga n qu es tio n in g h im aga i n. Ke v i n r e pe a t e d hi s s t o r y a b o ut wha t ha pp e ned on the ni ght o fRi l ey’ s di sappeara nce, and acco rdi ng to K evi n, i ts detai l s were the s am e a s the st or y he ga ve th em o n the ni g hto fhe r de ath. Aro und 8 : 10 p. m . , abo ut an hourafter he ar ri ved atthe sta ti on, S w ear engen ac cus ed Kev i n o fk i l l i ngRi l ey . Kev i n was o ut rage d; he st ar te d c r y i ng, j um ped f r o m hi s se at, y el l ed th athe w oul d ne ver do that, and t ri ed to pu sh hi s w ay p astN o. 08

- 3736 13 the o ffi cer s t o l eave . W achtli nterve n ed and to l d him to “s i t y o ura ss do w n. ” Kev i n di d s o . S wea r en g ena nd W achtlst ar ted ye l l i ng tha t they knew Kevi n ki l l ed Ril ey, and to l d him ( f al sel y) that t h ey h ad fiberev i dence i m pl i ca tinghi m . Every t ime h e tr i ed to de ny i t, the o ffi ce r s cuthi m o ff

. Kev i n a sk ed to see a l awy era nd Sw ea re n gen and W achtll eft the r oo m , l ock i ng the door b e h i n d th e m. A fe w mi n u t e s l a t e r S we a r e n g e n r e t u r n e d , th i s t i me wi th Ha y e s . S we a r e ng ent o l d Ke v i n tha tthe y h a d a su rv eilla n c e ta p e fro m th e M ob il sta tio n sh ow in g h is SU V driv in g p ast it at 4: 50 on the m orning of R il ey’s death. Kevi n knew that c oul dn ’ t be tr ue and denie d i t. Sw ea re n ge n th en su gg es te d i t w ou ld be be tt er for K ev in if th e w h ole th in g h ad be en an ac c id en t, an d th at if it w ere, K evin w o uld be ch arged only w ith involun tary m ansl aughter

. H aye s tol d hi m that i f i t w as n ’t an acc identKev i n wo ul d s pen d 3 0 y ea r s to l i fe i n pr i so n. H aye s k ept sa yi ng tha t he knew K evi n w oul d fa i l a pol ygr aph, so Kevi n vol unteer ed to ta ke one. M eanw hi l e, bac k in the w ai ti ng r oo m , M el i ssa gr ew im p atient w he n th ree hou rs p assed and Gu il foyl e d idn ’t appear a s pro m i sed. S he be gan k i cki ng o n the l ock ed d oor and yell ing f o r som eon e to com e and talk to he r. A ro und 11 p . m . , S w ear engen appeared and to ok her to an o ffi ce where W achtlwas w ai ti ng. They t ol d her that they thought K evi n ki l l ed Ri l ey. They t ol d M el i ssa, f or the fi r s tt i me, tha tR i l e y h a d b e e n se xu a l l y a s s a ul t e d. The y s ai d the y tho ug htKevin kil l ed Ri l eyb y a cc i den t and then t rie d t o m ake i t l oo k l i ke the m oti ve w as sexual as sa ul t. M el i ss a di dn’ t buythi s st o r y, e ve n f o r a n in-14 N o. 08

- 3736
sta nt. A t about m i dn i ght, o ffi cer s br ought a pal e, dra i ned Ke v i n t o th e o ffi c e wh e r e Me l i s s a wa s s i t t i n g, a nd he tol d her he w as go i ng to ta ke a pol ygr aph testso they coul d go hom e. Aro und 1 : 30 a . m . , Kev i n t o o ka po l y g r aphe xa m i na ti o n, and the e xam i ner im m ed i ate l y t ol d him thatthe re sul ts sh ow ed he w as no t being tru th ful. ( A t t r ia l, an exp ert w itn es s t es tifie d th at th e p oly gr ap h res u lts w er e fa b rica te d. ) Kev i n co ul d no t be l i ev e i t. Offi ce r s br o ug ht M e l i s s a i nt o the p o l y g r a phr o o m, a nd the p o l y g r a ph exam i ner tol d her K evi n had f ai l ed. M elis sa turned to K e v i n, t o l d hi m s h e l o v e d h i m, th a ts h e b e l i e v e d h i m, and that s he was behi nd hi m al l the w ay. A ccor d in g to the Foxe s, H aye s was o utsi de the door when M eli ssa m ade tho se c o m m en ts , a nd a s so o n a s sh e did, he went bal l i sti c. H e s cre am ed t o the o ffi cer s t o “ge t her the fuck out of that ro om ri ght now , ” a n d a detect i ve started pu ll ing M eli ss a o u t of the room by the arm w hi l e Ha y e s s c r e a med “ y o u’ r e a fuc k i ngmur de r e r ” at Kev in. H ay es the n metM el i ss a i n the do o r way a nd sc r ea m ed i n h erf ac e, “ Yo urhusba nd’ s a fuckingl i ar, a nd he ’ s a fuck i ngmurde r er . He never lov ed y o u o r y o ur fuck i ng da ught e r, a nd he k i l l e d he r, a nd y o u ne e d to l ear n to fucki ng g et ov er it. ” M el i ssa sa i d that s he was te r r i fi ed an d fel t l i k e H ay es ha d “ cr us he d the s pi r i t o ut of h er .” K evin test ified th at at th is point h e w as fall ing ap art because he c oul d not be l i eve he fa iled the pol ygr aph or th at H ay es ha d spo k en to hi s wi fe as he di d. Ba ck in the i nter ro gat i on roo m , H aye s t ol d K evi n that i fhe di d not ad m it to kil ling R ile y, he w ou ld fi llout th e arrest formN o. 08

- 3736 15 f orfi rs t- degre e m urder. H ay es then s ai d that he knew peopl e i n pri son and woul d m ake sure that ot h er i nm at es r ape d Kevin ever y da y . He s ta r te d fi l l i ngo ut th e a rre st form for firs t-d eg re e m u rd er , w h ile G u ilfoy le s t a r t e d b a n g i n g h a n d c u ff s o n th e t a b l e i n f r o n t o fh i m, scr eam i ng athi m , and cal l i ng hi m a “pussy. ” Hayes re peated the r ape thr eatse ver altim es and l ed K evi n to believe he w as being cha rged w ith fi rst-d egree m urd er. H ay es a nd Gui l f o y l e l eft th e r o o m a nd R ue tt i g era nd anothe r detect i ve, Davi d D obr owski, ente re d. K evin w as cry i ng, a nd Do b r o ws k i s t a r t e d r ub b i ng hi s b a c k i n a way Kev i n pe r ce i ve d a s se xua l l y thr ea te ni ng . Rue tt i g er, who w as si tting o pp osi te K evi n, to l d h im that hi s s tor y was “b u llsh it” an d trie d to d eg ra d e h im by m ov in g h is c h air cl ose r and cl ose r u n ti l Ruetti ger ’ s t est i cl es w er e pushed aga i nst Kevi n’s knee

. Kevi n i nterp re te d thi s a s a m ess age th at th e ra p e t h r e at s w er e re al. R u et tig er to ld K ev in that hi s f am i l y had ab andoned him and that M el i ssa w ou ld m ar r y s o m eo n e e lse w h o w ou ld rais e T yle r. K ev in co nt i nue d t o de ny a ny i nv o l ve m en t i n Ri l ey ’ s dea th

. D o b r o w sk i an d R u et tig er leftth e ro om an d G u ilfoy le r etur ne d wi tha pi nkr ibb o n m agne t r ea di ng“Ri l eyi n o ur H ear t. ” Guil f oyl e threw the m agneto n the tabl e in fro nt o f Kev i n a nd y el l ed th atRi l eywas o n h erkne es b eg g i ng K ev in to ad m it w h at h e d id an d giv e h er clo su re . G u ilfoy le l e ft, a nd s o me t i me l a t e r Ha y e s a nd S we a r e ng e n r e t urne d. H aye s was hol ding a s tacko fphoto s, and he s how ed K ev in a c rim e s c en e p h ot og ra p h of R iley ’s b o d y i n fu ll ri gorm or ti s. Thi s i s ho w Kevi n l ear ned that s he had be end uc t-t ape d. S wea r en g enwas o uto fb r ea tha nd16 N o. 08

- 3736

ex ci te d a nd t o l d Kev i n tha t he ha d just lear ne d tha t th e s t a t e ’s a ttorn ey w ou ld give K evin a d eal i f he said th ere had been a n acci dent. H e s ai d i fKevin a d m i tte d to an acci dent he w oul d b ond out the next day and w ou ld se r ve o nl y thr ee t o fi ve y ea r s i n pr i so n. A t th is p oint K evi n sai d he fel t he had to go al ong w i th the a cci dent sto ry . H e thought i fhe di d, he co uld g o hom e the next day and c l ear hi s nam e. Sw earenge n bega n propos i ng ac ci dent sce nari os to K evi n. H e a ske d i fRi l ey fel l o ffthe couch and Kevi n sai d no. H e pr oposed another sto rythatKevi n denie d, an d Sw ear engen tol d him h e had to com e up w i th so m ethi ng. Kevi n deci ded he would ag re e t o an i m pla usibl e ac ci dent sto ryso that w h en h e goto ut he coul d prove thati t was al l a l i e. H e deci ded to te l l the offi cer s he acci dental l y hi t Ri l ey w i th the bathro om doorbec ause h e knew itwas i m possibl e t o hurt he r seve re l y that w ay; the bathr oo m door w a s h o llow . H e a lso to ld th e o ffice rs th at w h en h e h it he r wi th th e d o o r s h e fe l l a n d h i th e r h e a d o n th e b a thtu b

— anothe r i m possibi l i ty, acc or ding to K ev in , bec ause the b athtub w as seve ra l feetfro m the door

. S w ear engen tol d K evi n he had to sa y that he though t th at Ri l ey w as de ad but that s he was actual l y unconsc i ous; theyneeded a way to expl ai n h ow she drowned

. The o ffi cer s had not foun d Rile y ’s u nd erw ear, an d they asked K evin w he re i t was . He r epl i ed th at itwas i n the c r ee k, b utthe offi cer s tol d hi m he coul dn ’ t say that (th ey had searc he d the cree k un su cce ssfully). K evin told the offi cers that he dro ve R iley ’ s bo dy to the cre ek and then drov e ho m e o n a spe ci fi c r o ut e. H e to l d th em he threw the duct tap e away i n a s to r e dum pst ertha t was no t o n theN o. 08

- 3736 17

ro ute he gave them , kno w i ng tha t the detai l would not ch ec ko ut
. H e sai d he wentho m e an d l eft th e f r o nt and back doors op en and w ent t o sl eep. Kevi n sai d that he ga ve the a nsw er s the o ffi cers wanted to hearbec ause he tho ught that was t h e onl y way he w as going to ge t th e m t o s t o p th r e a t e n i n gh i m. Laterthat m or ni ng, Kevi n w as tak en to the W i l l County j ai l wh ere h e m et w i th a l aw yer . H e i m m edi ate l y r enounced his “co nfe ssi on. ” He tol d he r w hat happened du ring the i nter ro gat i on, and the next d ay a press re l eas e was publi shed expla i ni ng tho se detai l s. S ho r tly afte r Kev i n was j ai l ed, Hay es c al l ed th e F BIa nd told th em to stop testing th e DN A eviden ce on Riley’ s ca se . Ei g htmonths l at er, the defens e te am fi na l l y g o t th e D N A ev id en c e t o a p ri va te lab , w h ich te st ed it w ith in days. The r esul ts showed with 1 00 perce nt ce rt ai nty th at K evi n w as not th e d onoro fthe DN A f ound on a vaginal sw ab a nd o n th e d u ct t ape o n Ri l ey’ s m outh. On J une 17, 2 0 0 5 , the da y a ft e r the DNA t e s tr e s ul t s we r e r e l e a s e d, the pr ose cutordro pp ed the charg es and K evi n w as re lea se d from cu st od y. H e h ad sp en t 2 43 d ay s in j ail. F o l l o wi ngthe v er di ct s i n f av o r o fthe Fo xe s, the de fen dants m ove d fo r a new tr i alo r j ud gm ent a s a m at ter o f law un d er F ed eral Ru le ofCivil Proc ed ure 50(b), f or a ne w tr i alunde r Rul e 59 ( a) , a nd t o alter o r a m en d the j ud gm en t under Rule 59( e) , ar gui ng tha t the tr i alwas ta i nt ed bye r r o ne o us e vi den ti ary r ul i ng s an d j ur y i nstr ucti ons. They a l so ar gued that t h ey were enti tl ed to j udg m en t as a matt erof law o n the c o ns ti tu ti o na l a nd e mot i o na l di s t r e s s c l a i ms a nd tha t the da mag es aw ar ds18 N o. 08

- 3736

A fterthe defe nd ants assi gned to the Foxes thei r rights und er 1 ins urance poli ci es i ss ued by A m eri can Alte rnati ve Ins urance Co rporati on and Ess ex Ins urance Com pany , the i nsurers i n te rv en ed in th is a p p ea l. T h e i n su re rs su b m itt ed b ri efs arguing that the verd ic ts are fa ta ll y incons is tentand that pu ni t i ve da m a ge s a r e un war r a nt e d. M el issa’ s I I ED c l ai m doe s no ts t em fro m Kevi n’ s ar re s tor 2 pro s ec ut i on, butr athe r f ro m Hayes ’ s t re at m en tofM el i s s a o n the ni ghtofthe i nt er ro gat i on. wer e ex ce ss i ve . The di strictc o ur t den i ed th e m o ti o ns except that i t threw out the puniti ve dam age s a w ar ded to M el i ssa and parto fthe pu nitive dam age s a w ar ded to K evi n, l eaving a $12. 9 m i l l i on j ud gm ent intact. ( A fter Ruetti ger’s estate sa ti sfi ed the j ud gm ent a gainst i t, $1 2. 2 m i l l i o n rem aine d. ) The de fen dan ts a ppea l, a r g ui ng th atthe y a r e en ti tl ed to r ev er sa l o n a l l c o unt s o r, i n the alt er n at ive , a n ew tria l. 1 The defe nd an ts ’ cent ra l ar gum ent o n appeal i s that they had probabl e ca use t o ar re st K evi n and, acc or dingl y, th at th ey ar e en ti tl ed to qua l i fi ed i m m uni ty o n all b ut Me l i s s a ’ s I I E D c l a i m. Se e, e . g. , Pie rs on v. Ray, 386 U

. S. 54 7, 2 55 5 (1 96 7); M ust afa v. C ity of Chi. , 442 F.3d 544 , 547 (7th C ir. 2006 )

. A ccor ding to the F oxes, the defe n d an ts w ai ved th is a rg u m en t b y n eg lec tin g t o p re se n t it

— i n the exact f or m i n w hi ch i t a pp ear s o n appeal

— to th e d i str i ct c ourt
. W hi l e i t i s tr ue that som e of the nuances ofthe defe nd ants’ ar g um ento n a ppea l di fferfr o m the i r s ta nc e be f o r e th e d istr i ct c ourt, i t i s cl earthatthe defe nd ants consi ste n tly pr es en te d the he ar t o fthe i r qua l i fi ed im m uni tya r g um en t thr o ug ho utthe pr o ce eding s. W ai ve r i s no t m ea ntN o. 08

- 3736 19

as an ov er ly te c h n ica l a p p ella te h u rd le, s e e, e . g. , Nol e n v . Sul l i van , 93 9 F

. 2d 516 , 5 18 -19 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91) , and beca use th e d efe n d an ts ’ q u alifie d im m u n ity arg u m en t w as fairly prese nted thr oughout the di sposi ti ve pre- and post- tr i al m oti ons, we w i l l r evi ew i t her e. I n s o r t i n go u tth e qu e s t i o n o fqu a l i fi e d i mmun i t y, we m ust ask w hetherthe f acts

— aga i n, taken i n the l i ght m ost f avo rabl e to the F oxes

— show that the o ffi cer s’ co nd uct vi ol ate d K evi n’s cl ear l y e stab lished co nsti tuti onalr i ghts. Se ePe ars on v. Cal l ahan , 129 S. Ct

. 8 0 8 , 815-16 (2009); N ewsom e v. M cCa be, 319 F. 3d 301, 303- 04 ( 7th Cir

. 2003 ) . I t i s wel l

- est abl i shed that an ar re st w i th ou t pr obab l e ca use vio lat es th e F ou rt h A m en d m en t, see D even pe c kv . Alfo rd, 54 3 U. S

. 1 46 , 1 52 ( 20 04 ) , s o the que st i o n i s whethe r the e v iden ce su p p orts the j ury’s fi nd ing tha t the officers ar re ste d K evi n w i thout probabl e ca use. To answer thi s quest i on w e m ust i denti fy the ea rl i est ti m e atwhi chthe j ur y r ea so nabl y co ul d ha ve f o und th at K ev in w as u n d er arr es t. See U nited Sta t e s v . Reed , 44 3 F

. 3d 60 0, 60 2- 03 ( 7th Ci r . 20 06 )

. An a r r es t o cc ur s when, “in v i ew o f al l o fthe c i r cumst an ce s su r r o undi ngthe i nci dent, a re aso nabl e per son w oul d have be l i eve d that he was n ot fr ee to l eave . ” U nited Sta tes v. T yler, 51 2 F

. 3d 405 , 4 09

- 10 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( ci tat i ons om i tte d). The Fo xes conte nd tha tthe a r r e s to c c ur r e d s o o n a ft e r the y a r r i ved atthe s t a t i o n, a r o u n d 8 : 1 0 p . m. T h a ti s th e mo men t j ust a fterS w ear engen an d W achtlacc used K evi n of ki l l i ng Ri l ey w hen K evi n sto od u p and tr i ed to l eave b u t w as to ld by W ac h tl t o s it h is “ as s d ow n .”20 N o. 08

- 3736 The defe nd ants ar gue th at K evi n w as not und erar re st atth i s p o i n t b e c a u s e h e d i d n o t a s k th e o ffi c e r s i fhe c ou ld lea ve . See H a ll v. B a tes , 5 0 8 F

. 3d 854, 857 (7th Cir. 20 07 ). B u t w h et h er a p er so n as ks p e r m iss ion to lea ve is buto ne f actor am o ngmany i n the a r r es t an al y si s. The othe r f acto rs in cl ud e whether the pol i ce info rm a perso n th at h e is su sp ecte d of a crim e, w he th er the p erson ’s m ov em en t is l i m i te d , w h et h er th e o ffice rs en ga ge in c o e r c i v e c o nd uc ts ug g e s t i ngtha tc o o pe r a t i o n i s r e qui r e d, an d w h et h er th e pe rs on is in a p riv at e l o c at ion
. T yler, 512 F. 3d at 410. T he m aj ority of th e relevan t arrest fa c t o rs f al l i n Ke vin’ s f av o r . At the mom en t i n que st i o n, Sweare ngen a nd W achtlacc used K evi n of killingRi l ey. Kev i n a tt empte d t o l ea ve the i nt er r o g at ionr o o m , b ut W ac h tl p re ve n te d h im from d oin g s o in n o u n c er ta in te rm s. U nd erthes e ci rcum sta nces, a re aso nabl e per son ce r ta i nl y woul d no t th i nkhi m sel f f r ee t o l ea ve . Act i o ns do speak lo u d erthan w or ds. H er e, Kevi n tr i ed to l eave the r oo m and w as b locked; he was notr equi re d to reiterate h is req ue st verba ll y to establish h is sei zu re f orFo urth Am en dm ent purpos es. A ccor dingl y, a re asonab l e j ury coul d concl ud e that Kevi n w as a rr est ed at 8: 10 p. m . , e ar l y o n dur i ngwhatwas t o b e a ve r y l o ng ni g hto fi nt er r o g at i o n. N ex t, w e m us t d eterm ine w he th er a reasona ble j ury co ul d fi nd tha t atthe mom en t o fKev i n’ s a rre stthe offi cer s l acke d probabl e cau se. A nsw er i ng thi s quest i on re quir es a cl ose l oo k a t the f acts o fthi s ca se , a tas k m ad e m or e d if f i c u lt b y t h e p ar tie s’ o fte n w id ely d ive rg en t a c c ou n ts o ft h e u n d er lyin g e ve n ts . Pa rtof th is dive rg ence, i t s eem s, can be c hal ked up to the co l l i si onN o. 08

- 3736 21 oftwo bas i c princi ple s. O n the one hand , i t doe s no t ta k e muc h t o e s t a b l i s h pr o b a b l e c a us e . Th e o ffi c e r s m ust ha ve mor e th ana b ar e su spi ci o n tha t they ha ve the ri g ht g uy, b ut the y ne e d no t ha v e e no ugh e v i dence to su pp or t aco nvi cti on o r eve n to sho w thatthei r bel i ef is m o r e like ly tr u e t h an fals e. Wood s v. C ity of Chi. , 23 4 F.3 d 97 9, 99 6 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ). A n d t h is s ta n d ar d is m ade ev en m or e for gi vi ng i n the conte xt o fq u ali fi ed im m u n ity , w h ich “ a p p l i es n oton ly to th os e o fficia ls w ho co rr ectl y dete rm in e that pr obab l e ca use t o ar re st exi sts , but al so to those g ove rnm entalo ffi ci al s who re as o nab l y b utmi s t a k e nl y c o nc l ud e tha ti tdoes

. ” Spi ege l v. C o rtese, 1 96 F

. 3d 71 7, 7 23 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 9). M i ndfulo fthe tall tas k confro nted by pol i ce i nvest i gat or s, w e m ake th is deter m i nati on ba se d on “the f acts as theywould have re aso nabl y a pp eare d to the ar re sting o ffi cerse ei ng wh at he sa w , h ea ring wh at he hear d .

. . . ” D r i e b e l v. Ci ty of M ilw a uk ee, 29 8 F.3 d 622, 64 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( i nter nal q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d )

. O n th e o th e r h a n d , h o wev er, the pr o babl e ca us e st an dar d do es no t trum p o ur d u ty to d efe r to a j u ry ’s fin d in gs . Ne w s o me, 31 9 F

. 3d at 303-04. “C lai m s of qu ali fi ed i m m un ity neith er requ ire norautho ri ze deno vo ap p ella te rev iew of th e e vid en c e.” Id. at 303. I nstea d, w e m ake al l re aso nable c redibi l i ty deter m i nati ons a n d i nfe re nces i n f avo r ofthe Foxe s, ask i ng wh etherunder thei r ve rs i on o fthe f acts a re aso n ab le offic er co u ld co n c lu d e t h at th er e w as p r o b ab le c a u s e t o a r r e s tK e v i n o n O c t o b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , a t8 : 1 0 p . m. Se ei d. ; Sornbe rge r v. C it y o f K noxv il le, Ill

. , 43 4 F

. 3d 1006 , 1014 ( 7th Cir. 2006). The defe nd ants prese nt a l aund ryl i st of fac ts ( thre e pages ofbul l et p oi nts in thei r openi ng br i ef ) thatthey22 N o. 08

- 3736 bel i eve support a probab le c ause fi nd i ng. Thei r l i st su ffer s f r o m manys ho r tc o m i ng s, the mos t se r i ou s be i ng th ati t i s co m pr i se d l ar g ely o fdi spu te d f ac ts
. The de fen d an ts ap p ea r to int er p re t t h e r ela tiv ely len ien t p ro b ab le ca us e st an dar d a s l i ce ns e to r ely o n the i r v er sion o fthe ev e n t s , b u t, as w e h av e jus t e x p lain ed , at t h is s ta ge it is th e F ox es ’ ve rs io n th at ca rrie s t h e d ay . Ne w s o me, 31 9 F

. 3d at 303. I t i s t rue that probabl e ca u se i s dete rm i ned fr om the pe rs p ecti ve ofwh at the o ffi cer s knew atthe ti m e o f th e a r r e s t, b u tth a td o e s n o tme a n th a tth e j u r y w a s c o mp el l ed to bel i eve the offi cer s’ te sti m ony i n re achi ng a pr o babl e ca us e det er m i na ti o n. F o r e x a mpl e , th e d e fe n d a n t s c i t e a s a f a c t o r i n t he probabl e ca use a nal ysi s S w ear engen’ s t est i m ony that K evi n w as suspi ci ousl y unem oti onalduri ng an i n ter vi ew on the day Ril ey disa pp eared. But the tes ti m ony w as i nc o ns i st en t

— Sweare ngen a dm i tte d that Kevi n cr i ed du ring tha t s am e inter vi ew , and a c aval cade o fo ther wi tn es se s co nfi r m ed th at K evi n was di st r au g htthr o ug hou t t h e d ay . A lth o u gh it is tr u e t h at an ina p p ro p ria te ly fl at em oti onalst ate couldr ai se a n o ffi ce r ’ s s us pi ci o ns , the j ur y di d no t ha ve t o c r edi t S wea r en g en ’ s test i m o ny that K evi n w as str angel y s toi c tha t day. The defe nd ants re l y o n dis pu ted f acts f orano ther som ew hat biza rre f acto r i n thei r probabl e ca use an aly sis ; th ey co n te n d th at th e o ffice r s rea so n ab ly bel i eve d that Ri l ey’ s inj uri es “w er e no t co nsi ste nt with a s exual pre datorhavi ng k i l l ed and sexual l y a ssa u lted he r, ” th us s uppo r tingthe i r theo r y tha t Kev i n was i nvol ved. S w ear engen and Ser gea nt M i chaelM ar kowski,N o. 08

- 3736 23

w ho a tte nd ed the autopsy, te sti fi ed t hat the pathol ogi st st at ed th at Ri l ey ’ s se xua l i nj ur i es wer e m i no r . The de fen dants ar gue that Ri l ey’ s “ m i nor ” inj uri es, to gether w i th th e r el at i ve l ys m al l a m o unto fduc t ta p e f o und o n the body a nd wh at they sayar e a la c k ofdefensi ve w ou nd s, w e r e incon sisten t w ith th e involvem en t of a s e x u a l p r e d a t o r b e c a u s e , a c c o r d i n g t o th e m, t he t r a u ma w as i nsuffi ci entl y b ruta l

. But at tr i althe pathol ogi st fl atl y denie d e ver chara cter i zing Ril ey’ s sexualinj uri es as m i nor . H e test i fi ed that her i nj uri es w oul d have been seve re f oran a du l t wom an and w er e absolutel y a t the t op ofthe sc ale f ora sm al l chi l d. The autopsy al so r ev ea led w ounds o n Ri l ey ’ s l eg s an d he ad whi ch, ac c or d in g t o a n ot h er ex p er t, w er e d efe n siv e. G ive n th is testim ony , the j ury d id n ot ha ve to believe the o ff ic ers w he n th ey testifi ed that they thou gh t t h e i njuries w ere “m i nor . ” An d even ab se n t the co nfl i ct, pro babl e ca use m u st res t o n rea so n ab le b elie f, see P he l an v. Vi l l

. of Ly ons , 531 F. 3d 484, 48 9 ( 7th Ci r. 200 8), and her e the o ffi cer s’ theo ryi s abso l utel y unre aso nable. The offi cer s knew th atRi l ey, a thr ee - y ea r - old ch i l d, ha d l ac er at i o ns a nd bru ise s in hervag i na, thatshe had been bo und with duct tape, and then, f ol l owing the s exual as saul t, l eft fordead i n the cre ek. U nd ertho se c irc um sta nces i t was unre asonab l e forthem to r ule o ut a sexualpre datora s her at ta c ke r. P r o b a b le c au se m ay be a loo se co n c ep t, bu t it l e a v e s n o r o o m f o r the ab s ur d. N o r do es th e pro babl e ca us e st an dar d a l l o w the de fen dan ts to r ely o n f ac ts wi th o utr eg ar d t o the ful l c o nt ex t ofth e c irc u m st an c es kn ow n to th em . G uz ell v. H iller, 223 F. 3d 518, 52 0 ( 7th Cir. 2 00 0) ( noti ng tha t pol i ce24 N o. 08

- 3736 “can’ t cl ose thei r eye s” to inf or m ati on that undercuts probabl e ca use)

. H er e, the defe nd ants hi ghl i ght a s a probabl e ca use f acto r K evi n’s st ate m ent that he l ock ed th e f r o ntdo o r b efo r e g o i ngt o b ed, whenthe ne xt m orni ng the fro nt doorwas open with no s i gn o ff or ced entr y. Sta n ding al one, thi s would sug ges t a n i nsi de j ob. Bu t that infe re nce i s r eas onabl e o nl y i fwe i gnor e o ther fac ts kn ow n to th e o ffice rs a t th e tim e o f th e a rre st : sp ec ifical l y, thatthe backdoorto the Fox h ou se di d not l ock, so an i ntruder w oul d not nee d to f or ce e ntryto ge t insi de. U nd er thes e circum stan ces, the lack of a fo r c ed entry i s i rr el evant
. T h e d efe n d an ts als o re ly on T yle r’s vid eo t a p e d V SI, noti ng tha t a t o ne poi nt i n the i nter vi ew Tyl ersa i d that he sa w hi s f atherl eave t h e h ou se aftertheyr etur ned hom e. They a rgue thatthi s s tat em ent g ave them probab le c ause to thi nk tha t Kevi n l eft the house to dispos e o fRi l ey’ s bo dy. B ut the defe nd ants f ai l to m en ti o n ( unt i l the i r r eply b r i ef ) the f ac t th at d uring the V SI T yle r re p ea te d ly a n d co n sis te n tly st at ed th at K ev in l eft withoutR iley an d th at sh e re m ain ed sle ep in g w h ile he was o ut si de. Kev i n a l r ea dy ha d e xpl aine d tha t he we nto ut s i de to s mok e a c i g a r e t t e a ft e r p ut t i ngthe k i ds to sl eep. Thus, Tyl er ’ s V SIst ate m ent woul d add no fuel to a r ea so nabl e o ffi ce r ’ s su spi ci o n. I n a ddi ti o n t o r ely i ngo n di spu te d f acts a nd t ak i ng o th er s o uto f co nt ex t, the de fen dan ts po i ntt o many f acts thatar e s i m plyi rr el evantto the probab l e ca use anal ysi s. Fo r exam ple , the defe nd ants note that FBI st ati sti cs s how that60 p er cent ofm urdere d chil dren underN o. 08

- 3736 25 th e a ge of five w er e k illed by th eir p ar en ts . B u t t h is s t a t i s t i c i s u nmo o r e d fr o m t he f a c t s o fthi s cas e

— both the defendan ts and the pl ai nti ff s pre sente d expert w i tn es se s w h o s ta te d th at th e s ta tis tic ’s p er c en ta ge is g r ea tly r educed w hen the murde r i s co upl ed wi tha sex ua l a s s a u lt. Th e d efend an ts also rel y on K evin’s historyo fo ccasi onalco cai ne use as a probabl e ca use f ac to r . The j udg e ex cl ude d th ate vi den ce a s undul y pr ej udici al, but ev en h ad i t co m e in, hi s pastdrug use woul d no t unde rm in e th e j ur y ’ s ve r di ct
. The r e i s no su g g es ti o n tha t Kev i n was i m pai r ed bydr ug s o n the ni ght of Ril ey’ s death, and the defe nd ants f ai l to expla i n how h i s cocaine u se m onths pri orto Ri l ey’ s death coul d add anythi ng to a re aso nabl e o ffi cer ’ s s uspici on that he ki l l ed hi s o w n daughter

. Th e sa m e goe s f or Kev i n’ s st at ementtha t he was “ pi ss ed” whenhe l ear ned that R iley ’ s bo dy had been found. W hat ra ti onalper son w oul d n ot b e a ngrywh en to l d that thei r chi l d h ad b een m urdere d, and i n any eve nt, ev en S wea r en g ent es ti fi ed th atthi s st at ementi s i ns i g ni fi ca nt i n the probabl e ca use ca l cul us. A fter f acto ring out th e fl uff

— the di sputed, m i schar acter i zed, and i rr el evantf acts

— th e defen dan ts ’ a r g um en t r e s t s o n th e f o l l o wi ng : K e v i n ( 1 ) wa s th e l a s tkn o wn adult to be with Ri l ey; (2) loo ked f orRi l ey f or40 m i nutes bef or e r epor ti ng herd isa p peara nce t o a no nem er gency num ber ; ( 3) di d not ca l l M elis sa i m m edi ate l y upon di sco ve r i ngtha t Ri l eywas g o ne ; ( 4) di d not reve altha t he w atched an a du l t v i deo the ni ght that Ri l ey disa pp ear ed unt i l the ni g hto fhi s i nt er r o g at i o n m onths l at er, a nd ( 5 ) a vehi c l e tha tc o ul d h a v e b e e n Ke v i n’ s F o r d E s c a pe26 N o. 08

- 3736 appeared o n a g as sta ti on’ s su rv ei l l ance v i deo duri ng a ti m e when K evi n sai d he w as asl eep and i n the gener al ti m efra m e o fR i l ey’ s di sappeara nce. A l though o fco urse the o ffi cer s d i d not need anythi ng cl ose to an a i rt i ght c ase b efore they ar re ste d K evi n, theyneeded co ncre te f acts suffi ci ent t o el evat e thei r hunch thathe was i nvol ved in R iley ’s d ea th to a re as on ab le b elie f. Se e H ol m e s v. Vi l l

. of H o ffm a n E stat es , 51 1 F

. 3d 673, 67 9 ( 7th C ir. 20 07)

. H er e, th e f act s, whent ak eni n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the Foxe s, f al l sho rt
. The defe nd ants pla c e p arti cul arweight o n K evi n’s l ate admi ss i o n tha t h e wat ch ed ana dul t vi deo b efo r e g o i ng to sl eep o n the ni ght o fRi l ey’ s dea th , and theyhave seve ra l theo ri es re gar ding its i m port ance. Fi rs t, they co nt en d tha t al th o ug h Ke vin t o l d the m f ro m da y o ne th athe ha d wat ch ed TV tha t ni g ht, he di d no t spe ci fy th at h e had w atched an adult vi deo unti l the eve ni ng o f h i s i n t e r r o g a t i o n . Ac c o r d i n g t o th e d e fe n d a n t s , th i s ” n e w” re vel ati on s how ed thathe o ri gi nal l y had l i ed to them ab o uthi s be ha vi o r . Ob vi o us l y f al se a nd i nc o ns i st en t expla nati ons can l end s u p p or t t o a probabl e ca use fin d in g, se e U nite d States v. G arci a , 17 9 F

. 3d 265, 26 9 ( 5th C ir. 19 99 ), esp ec ially w h en th ey go t o a m at er ial fa c t in th e c a s e, see B o o k er v. Wa rd, 94 F. 3d 1052, 1058 (7th C ir. 19 96 )

. B u t w h at w e h av e h er e is th e o m iss ion of a d et ail, not a l i e about a m at er ial fact. W i thout m or e, a re as o n a b l e o ffi c e r wo u l d p r o b a b l y c o n cl u d e fr o m th e “ n e w” i nf o r m at i o n tha t Kev i n o m i tted th e det ai l o fwhathe w atched be cause it was i rr el evantand, per haps, bec ause i t was em bar ra ssi ng.N o. 08

- 3736 27

The defen dant s do n ot ar gue thatM ar kows ki ’ s kno wle dge 3 o fK e v i n ’ s o r i g i n a l s t a t e me n ts h o u l d b e i mp u t e d t o th e m. See, e. g., U n ite d S ta te s v. P arra , 402 F. 3d 752, 764- 66 ( 7th Cir

. 2005) (d isc u ssi n g co lle ct iv e k n o w le d g e d o ct ri n e). T h e d efe n d an ts try to j ac k u p th e s ign ifica n c e o f th is d et ail by cl ai m i ng tha t o n the day o fRi l ey’ s death K evi n to l d pol i ce that he coul d not r em em berwh at he wa t c h e d o n T V th a t n i g h t, s o h i s a d mi s s i o n o n t he nigh t of th e interrogation rep resen ted not j us t new i nform ation b uta n a ctua l c ha ng e i n h i s st o r y . Buta t tr i althe o nl y o ffi ce r who t es ti fi ed th atKev i n o r i g i na l l y s ai d he c ou ld n o t r em em b er w h at h e w at c h ed w as M ar ko w sk i, w ho w as no t inv o lv e d i n th e interrogation or K evin’s ar re st. N one ofthe defe nd ants tes tifi ed that they knew at th e t im e o f th e a rre st th at K ev in o rig in ally h ad sa id he co ul d n o tr e memb e r wh a th e wa t c he d, a nd i n f act S we a re ng e n a dmi t t e d tha th e di d notkno w ab o ut the s up posed change i n sto ryat the m om ent o far re st. 3 Bec au se a t tr i althe de fen dants d id no t sh o w tha t th e
“ c h a n g e ” w a s a c i r c u m s t a n c e kn o w n t o th e m a tth e t i me of t h e a r r e s t, t h ey ca n n otp oin t t o it a s a fac to r in th eir p ro b ab le c au se an aly sis
. See H o lm es , 51 1 F

. 3d at6 79 ( no ting th at p ro b ab le c au se tu rn s o n co n c lu sio n s re as on ab le offi cerco uld m ake fro m i nfo rm ati on k n ow n at ti m e o f ar re st ); B o o k er, 9 4 F

. 3d at1 05 8 ( sa m e)

. And i n a ny event, Kev i n te st i fi ed th at he di d no t ch an g e hi s story on th e n igh t o f h is in t er ro ga tio n . Th e jur y s im p ly c ou ld h av e fo u n d K ev in m or e c re d ible th an M ar ko w sk i. The defe nd ants al so ar gue th at Kevi n’s adm i ssi on re gar ding the a du l t v i deo r ais ed a re d fl ag f orthem28 N o. 08

- 3736 because i t a dd ed a s exual el em ent to his behav i or, wh i ch th ey co n sid er ed rele va n t g ive n th e s ex u al a ss a u l t . In add i ti on to adm i tting that he w atched p or nogr aphy, K evi n to l d the o ffi cer s that he had fe lt “h or ny” that ev en i nga nd ha d m as tu rba te d i nt o a c o ndo m . The d ist ric t c ou rtex c lu d ed th es e a d d e d d et ails as u n d u ly prej ud i ci al, a rul i ng tha t the def en dants now chal l enge on the gr ound that Kevi n’s se xual m ood w as an i m po r ta ntf ac to r i n the i r pr o babl e ca us e det er m i na ti o n. Bu t e ven the defen d an ts’ o w n expertwitnes s e xplai ned i n hi s o ffero fpro ofwh at shoul d have be en o bvi ous t o an y r e a s o nab l e p o l i c e o ffi c e r : tha tj us t“ b e c a us e a m an w atches adultpor nogr aphy and m asturbat es, ” does not m ean that “he is l ikel y to sexu all y m olest his th r e e -y earol d dau ghter

. ” W e do not sec on d-gues s the j ud gm ent o f the o ffi cer s l i gh tl y, but cour ts have an o bl i gat i on t o ensu re thatthe re aso ns supporting an ar re st ar e obj ecti vel y r eas onabl e. S ee D eve npeck, 543 U .S. at 1 52 -53 ; Sor nberger, 43 4 F

. 3d at 1014

- 15. To t h e ex tent theyas k us to c on c lu d e t h at K ev in ’s a d m iss ion to w at c h in g a n ad u lt vi deo and m asturba tin g l ends supp or t t o thei r deci si on to ar re st hi m f orki l l i ng hi s daughter, thatsug ge st i on str ays bey ond the b oundari es ofr eas onabl eness . The defe nd ants’ l ast
- dit c h eff or t t o sal vage so m e r el evan ce out of th e m astu rbation ad m issi on i s t h e ir asserti on tha t K evi n’s use ofa condom r eas onabl y hei ghtene d thei r suspi ci on. S peci fi cal l y, theysa y that the def en dants thought that K evi n m enti oned thi s deta i l as a “pree m pti ve str i k e , ” ma yb e think i ngtha tthe y h a d fo un d a c o nd om a tthe s c e ne tha tn e e de d t o b e e xp l a i ne d a wa y . P e r ha ps that ass er ti on would m ake a sl i vero fse nse i ftheyN o. 08

- 3736 29 actual l y had f ound a co nd om i n the house, but they h ad n ’t. M or e im p or ta n tly , th is s p in on h is a ss er t ion is utter l y inconsi ste nt w i th the o ffi cer ’ s s tat ed theo rythat K evi n acci dental l y k i l l ed Ri l ey a n d then sta ged a sexual a s s a u l t u sin g a fing er or a p en c il. Inan y e ve n t, th is ki nd o fspecul ati on a dd s no weigh t to the def endants’ p ro b ab le c au se an aly sis
. SeeU nite d State s v. C el li tt i, 38 7 F. 3d 618, 62 4 ( 7th Ci r. 2004) ( noti ng tha t o ffi cerspecul ation is insu ffici en t to estab li sh p roba b le cau se); Sh erou se v. R a tch ner, 5 7 3 F

. 3d 1055, 1062 (10th Cir. 2009) (“W he re an o ffi cero bser ves i nherent l y innocuous be havi orthat has pl ausibl e innocent ex p lan ati ons, i t t ake s m or e than sp ec u lat ion or m er e p o s s i b ility to giv e ris e t o p ro b ab le cau se to arrest.”). Eve n ful l y c r edi tingthe r emai ni ngf ac ts t o whi chthe defe nd ants poi nt, a re aso nabl e j ury could concl ud e that the d efendants l acke d probabl e ca use. Kevi n’s so m ew hat d iso rg ani zed 40

- m i nute se ar ch f orRi l ey i s no t s o u n u su al t o re as o n a b l y s u gg es t t h at h e w as inv olv ed in her de at h . N or i s the f act that he di d not ca l l M el i ssa rig h t a w ay or th at h e c a l l e d 4 11 ins te ad of 91 1 in a sm all town w here the sam e pol i ce di spatcheranswers bo th lin es . Th e g ra in y M ob il su rv eilla n c e v id eo len d s o n ly an o unce ofsupport to th e officers ’ theo ry . The vi deo did notco ncl us i vel y s how Kevi n’s car, but onl y a carthat couldha ve b ee n a F o r d Es ca pe. I n f ac t, a n o ffi ce r b r o ug ht i n speci fi cal l y t o exam i ne the ta pe coul d not e ven be sur e th atthe v eh i cl e was a F o r d Es ca pe i ns te ad o fa ny o th erb r and a nd mode l o fS UV. Af te r c o ns i der i ng th a te xc e e ding l y we a ke v i de nc e a l o ngwi th the o the r und i sputed f acts kno w n to the offi cer s a t the ti m e o f30 N o. 08

- 3736 K evin’s arrest, w e find no reason to distu rb the j ury’s concl usi on that the defendants l acke d probabl e ca u se to a r r es t hi m i n c o nne ct i o n wi thRi l ey ’ s dea th

. T h e d efe n d an ts m ak e o n e fin al e ffor t t o su p p or t t h eir cl ai m o fqual i fi ed i m m unity: they a rgu e th at eve n i fthey d id n ot h a v e p r obab le cause to arrest K evin for Ril ey’s m urder, theydi d have probabl e ca use t o arre st hi m f or othe r cri m es. They c orre c tl y point o ut thatan a rr est i s r eas onabl e under the F ourth A m end m ent s o l ong as ther e i s probabl e c au se to bel i eve that s o mecr i m i nal offense has be en o r i s be i ng co m m i tte d, eve n i fi t i s no t th e cr i m e wi thwhi chthe o ffi ce r s i ni ti al l y c ha r g e th e suspect. S ee D eve npeck, 5 43 U. S

. a t 15 3- 56

. The y a r g ue that the di str i ct c ourter re d w h en i t f ai l ed to i nstr uct th e jur y on th is p oin t o f law , an d th ey as se rtth at if it had, the j ury cou ld have found that the defendants had probabl e ca use t o ar re st K evi n f orat tem pted batt er y, agg ra vate d assa ult, o r obs tr ucti on o fj usti ce. Speci fi cal l y, they p oin t out that w hen Sweare ngen a ccused hi m o f k i l l i n gR i l e y, K e v i n s t o o d u p a n d s a i d “ i fy o u a c c u s e me o ne mor e ti m e, Ia m g o i ngt o punc h y ou , ” r i g htb efo r e he att em pte d t o l e a v e a nd Wac ht l t o l d h i m t o “ s i t[ hi s ] as s d o w n .” A c c or d in gly , th ey arg u e t h at th ey h ad p ro b ab le cau se at th at m om en t to arrest h im f o r a ttem p ted battery orag gr avat ed ass aul t. A l ternati vel y, theyar gu e that w hen K evi n sai d that he watched an adult vi deo they had probabl e ca use t o ar re st hi m f oro bstr ucti ng j usti ce. T h e Fox es c on te n d th at th e d efe n d an ts w aiv ed t h is ar gum ent b y f ailing t o prese nt i t be l ow, and here they have a poi nt . T o prese rv e thei r obj ecti on t o the di str i ctN o. 08

- 3736 31

cour t’ s deci si on notto gi ve a D eve npecki ns tru ction, the d e fe n d a n t s we r e r e q u i r e d t o o bj e c to n th e r e c o r d i n a ti m el y f ashi on a nd to m ak e an ar gum ent in supp or t o f th e p ro p os ed ins tr u c tio n . See F ed. R. Ci v. P. 5 1( c); C o nsu m er P rod s. R esearch & D esign v. Jensen , 572 F. 3d 43 6, 439 (7th C ir. 2009 ). Bu t the de fend an ts d id n ot ask for a D eve npeckj ur y i ns truct i o n, o n the r ec o r d, dur i ngthe j ury i nstr ucti on co nfe re nce. A l so, theyneve r expla i ned to the j ud ge thei r theo rythattheyhad prob abl e ca use t o ar re st K ev in fo r o n e o f th e c rim es th ey n ow cit e, n or d id th e y a s k f o r a n i n s t r u c t i o n i n f o r mi n g th e j u r y o fthe elem ents of thos e cri m es. I n f act, the onl y po in t in the r eco rd thatthe defe nd ants ci te to show t h at they devel oped the ass aul t o r obs tr ucti on o fj usti ce theor i es i n the distri ct c ourtwas i n a r epl y b ri efto thei r m oti on f ora new tr i al

. B u t b y then i t was to o l ate f orthem to d ev elo p a n ew th eo ry . See N a rd uc ci v. M o o re, 57 2 F

. 3d 313, 324 (7th C ir. 2009). I n any eve n t, ev en i fthe defe nd ants had prese rv ed the D eve npeckc o m po ne nto fthe i r pr o babl e ca us e ar g um ent, the evid en ce doe s no t s up portthei r conte nti on tha t the y ha d pr o b a b l e c a us e t o a r r e s t Ke v i n f o r any o f the c ri m es they now n am e. There i s no ev i dence sugg e s t i n gth a tK e v i n ’ s s t a t e me n tt o S we a r e n g e n w a s a c c o mpani e d b y a thr e a t e ningg e s t ur e , s uc h a s a r a i s e d fi st, an d bo th W ac h tl a n d Sw ea re n ge n (th e o n ly offic er s in the r oo m atthe ti m e) te sti fi ed that th ey d i d not be l i eve that K evi n w as actuall y threa teni ng S w ear engen. Giv en th e ut te r f ai l ur e o fKev i n’ s st at ementt o pr o vo k e i n the offi cer s the sl i ghtes t a pp re h ensi on o fa batt er y, no re asonabl e j ury coul d have found that the ci rcum sta nces32 N o. 08

- 3736 known to the offi cer s g ave them pro babl e ca use t o ar re st hi m f orat tem pted batt er y o r agg ra vate d a ss au l t. See 72 0 IL C S 5 /1 2- 1 , 5 /1 2-2 (a)( 6), 5/ 12 -3; Kij onka v. Seitz ing er, 363 F.3d 645 , 647-48 (7th C ir. 2004). S i m i l ar l y, b ec au se no ne o fthe o ffi ce r s wer e awar e of M ar k o w sk i’s s to ry th at K ev in orig in ally sa id h e c ou ld not re m em b erwh at he watched on TV the ni ght Ri l ey w as tak en, tha t st atem ent c oul d not hav e g i ven them probabl e ca use t o ar re st K evi n for obstr ucti on o fj ust i c e . P r o b a b l e c a u s e i s d e t e r mi n e d f r o m th e f a c t s kn o wn to th e office rs at th e t im e o f th e a rre st, see Ho lm es , 51 1 F

. 3d at 679, and no e vi dence showed that a t the m om ent o f hi s arr estany ofthe defe nd ants had rea son to bel i eve that K ev in h ad kn ow in gly giv en th em fals e in for m at ion , see 720 I LC S 5/31- 4( a)

. A ccor dingl y, they did not have p robabl e ca use f oran a rr estbas ed on obstr ucti on o fj usti ce. N ext, the defe nd ants ar gue that they a re enti tl ed to a new tr ial because , theysa y, the dist ri ct c ourtco m m i tte d n u m er ou s e vid en t i ar y e rro rs th at u n d er m in ed th eir abi l i ty to est abl i sh pro bable c au se. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct co ur t’ s ev i den ti ar y r ul i ng s o nl y f o r abus e o fdi sc r etion. H o llins v . City of M ilw a uk ee, 574 F.3d 822 , 828 (7th C ir. 2009 )

. Fi rs t, as we have note d , the defendants ar gue that the c ourtabuse d i ts disc re tio n i n excl ud i ng ev i dence th atKev i n t o l d the o ffi ce r s be f o r e hi s ar r est th athe was “ ho r ny ” o n the ni g hto fRi l ey ’ s di sa ppea r an ce a nd th at he ha d m as tu rba te d i nt o a c o ndo m whi l e wat ch i ng an adult vi deo. The defe nd ants ar gue that thi s evidence w as relevan t to show that K evin h ad c ha ng ed his story about n ot b eing abl e t o re m em berwh at he watched thatN o. 08

- 3736 33 ni ght. Even putti ng as i de the defe n d an ts’ tes ti m ony that the y di d not k no w abo ut th e su ppo se d ch an g e, th e cou rt al l owed them to el i ci t t est i m ony that K evi n w atched an adul t v i deo. That was the onl y f act th ey n eed ed to d e mo n s t r a t e th e s u p p o s e d c h a n g e . T h e d e fe n d a n t s c o mpla i n that w i thout the “ hor ny” c om m ent a nd m asturbat i on det ai l s, the c ha ng e i n st o r y l o se s i ts “dr amat i c” effec t. But h er e, “d ra m at ic” m igh t jus t a s w e l l s ta n d in fo r “p rej u d ici al

. ” A d i str i ct j ud ge, at the c ontr ol s o fan e m oti onal, gutw re nchingtr i all i ke thi s, i s in a f arbet terpos itio n than ap p ellat e j ud ges to weigh the com peti ng f acto rs thatgo i nto a proba ti ve val ue ver sus und uly prej ud i ci alcal cul us. A tr i a l j ud g e ’ s c a l l o n the s e t y pe s o f i s s ue s c a n o nl y b e u p se t if w e are c on vin c ed th at th e j u d g e h a s cle ar ly ab u se d th e w id e d isc re tio n h e e nj oy s. See Fed. R

. Evi d. 403; Lewis v. C ity of Chi. P oliceD ep’t, 59 0 F

. 3d 42 7, 44 1 ( 7th C ir. 20 09 ) (n ot in g d ist ric t c ou rtaffo rd e d sp ec ial d efe re n c e in d e t e r mi n i n gw h e th e r e v i d e n c e u n d u l y p r ej ud i c i a l )

. We ca nno t say th e j udg e ab us ed hi s di sc r et i o n whe n h e deci ded to ke ep thes e “ dram ati c” deta i l s fro m the j ury. The defe nd ants al so ar gue that the di str i ct c ourter re d i n excl ud i ng ev i dence thatM el i ssa to l d them o n the day Ril ey’ s bo dy w as f ound th at K evi n had a hi sto ryo f l yi ng ab out hi s co cai ne u se m onths pri orto the eve nts un d erlyi ng this case. Bu t to the ex ten t tha t this history i s r el evant to the defendants’ pro babl e ca use a nal ysi s, the c ourtal l owed them to subm i t e vidence that M el i ssa sai d that Kevi n had a hi sto ryo fl yi ng, i t j ust pro hibi ted th em f r om sh ow i ngtha t th e l i es wer e ab o utdr ug use. Thus, o nce ag ai n the d efendants were al l owed to prese nt the co re f act und er l yi ng the i r probabl e ca use34 N o. 08

- 3736

an al y si s butno w co m pl ain tha t i t p ac k ed ani ns uffi ci en t w al l op w i th the j ury because theywere not perm itte d to advance the ( obvi ousl y pr ej ud i ci aland bar el y pr obati ve) detai l s. That i s no t e nough to sho w t h at the dist ri ct c ou rtab u se d its d isc re tio n . C f. Kun z v. D eFe li ce, 538 F. 3d 66 7, 6 77 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( no tingwi tn es s’ s hi st o r y o fdr ug use r el evanto nl y ifgo es to i nabi l i ty to re cal l o r re l ate eve nts)

. N or a re w e co nvi nced that K evi n’s drug use i s r el ev an t to M el i ss a’ s l o ss - o f-co ns o r tium c l ai m . The defe nd ants poi nt to no ev idence thatafterRi l ey’ s death th e m ar r i ag e was a t ri skb ec au se o fKev i n’ s pr i o r dr ug u se, and to the extent i t would s how thattheyhad prob

l em s e ar l i er( and both Kevi n and M el i ssa te sti fi ed that th ey ha d w ha t th ey con side red typ ical m arital p roblem s), ag ain th e d ist ric t cou rt d id n ot ab u se its d isc re ti o n in conc l ud i ngtha ti t s p r o b a t i v e v a l ue wa s o utwe i g he d b y its p rej u d icia l effe c t. SeeLe w is , 59 0 F

. 3d at 441. N ext, the defe nd ants ar gue th at theywere preve nted f ro m es tabl i sh ing probabl e ca use be cause the di str i ct c o ur tg r a nt e d the F o xe s ’ mo t i o n i n l i mi ne t o e xc l ud e testi m o n y rega rd ing an y ad vice tha t an FB Iprofil er, S pec i alAge ntDa l e M o r ea u, g ave the de fen dan ts dur i ng a co nfe r en ce c al l b etwee n h i m a nd s ev er alo fthe de fen dants ni ne days afterRi l ey’ s death. T h e d efendants ass er t that the te sti m ony w oul d have s how n th at M or eau to ld th e d efe n d an ts th ey w er e o n th e rig h t t r a c k in f ocusi ng o n K evi n as a s uspect. But th e d efendants n ev er rea lly ar gu ed to th e d ist ric t c ou rtth at t h e te st im ony w as re l evant to the probabl e cause anal ysi s. It w as n ’t. T h e F B I pr o filer d id n otsa y t h at an y of t h e e vidence theyco l l ecte d am ounted to p robabl e ca use;N o. 08

- 3736 35

W e note thatthe d efendan ts also argu e that i t was prej ud ic ial 4 f or the di s t ri c tc our tt o e xc l ude the vi deo m em or i al i zi ng the en d ofthe i nt er ro gat i on w hi l e al l owin g the Fox es t o pr es en t st aged photograp hs r eenact ing their v er si on of the int errogati on. In those photos the Foxes play them se lves and actors (co n tin u ed ...) i nstea d, he si m plyto l d them i t was r eas onabl e t o kee p i nvest i gat i ng K evi n to see i f they coul d c om e up w i th pr o b a b l e ca us e . The o nl y ar g ume ntde fe ns e c o un s e l ma de to the di str i ct c ourtwith r espect t o re leva ncy was an ass er ti on that the te sti m ony “go es to expla i n th eir co urse ofco nd uct o r thei r beh av ior.” They g o to m uch gr eat er l engths i n thei r bri ef s o n appealto expl ai n w hat that m ean s, bu t they did not d evelop the argu m en t before th e d is tr i ctj udg e. Acco r di ng l y, we do no t fi nd tha t th e d ist ric t c ou rtab u se d its d isc re tio n in e x c lu d in g t h is tes ti m ony. Fi nal l y ( w i th r espectto the evi denti ar y a rgum ents, that i s) the de fen dan ts a r g ue tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r o neou sly exclu d ed th e videot ap e m em orial izi ng K evin’s “c o nfes si o n. ” The v i deo was the s ubj ec t o fr epe at ed an d prol onge d sid e b ar s duri ng wh i ch the defe nd ants ar gued that it dem onst ra tes thattheyhad prob abl e ca use t o ar re st K evi n. That a rgum ent g oe s ou t the window with o urc o nc l us i o n tha t a reaso nabl e j ur y c o ul d ha ve f o und t h a t the arrest occu rred shortly after 8 p.m

. , 11 hou rs bef or e the vi deo w as m ade. Recogni zi ng tha t l i m i tat i on, o n appeal the defe nd ants f ocus o n an ar gum ent that they r ai sed bel o w, i fo nl y c ur so r i l y : tha t th e vi deo i s r el ev an t to Kev i n’ s m al i ci ous pr o se cut i o n a nd I I ED cl ai m s. The 436 N o. 08

- 3736

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 play the defe nd ants
. A t fir st blush, thi s st ruck us as a pers uasi ve argum ent, but then we checked the rec ord and l earned that the defe nd ants did not actuall y ob j ectw hen the court adm it ted th e r e e n a c t me n tp h o t o s a tt r i a l

. I t ’ s t o o l a t e f o r th e m t o c o mp la in n o w . S ee L ew is , 590 F. 3d at 444. defe nd ants ar gue that v i ew i ng t h e v i deo would have hel ped the j ury deci de w hether the defe nd ants coe rce d hi s co nfes si o n a nd whe th erhe was s ho wi ngs i g ns ofse ver e di str ess i m m edi ate l y fol l owing the all ege d coe r ci o n. But th er e ar e no al l eg at i o ns o f phy si ca l ha rm th at the vi deo co uld ve ri fy, and al l o fthe al l ega ti ons of coerc ion stem fro m ev ents l eadi ng up to the v i deo

— eve nts that the defendants chos e no t t o rec or d . M ost i m port antl y, the v i deo r epres ents j ust 2 3 o fthe 870 m i nutes o r so ofKevi n’s i nter ro gation , and thus c annot provi de a c om ple te picture ofei therthe i nter ro gat i on i t s e l fo r K e v i n ’ s l e v e l o fd i s t r e s s . U n d e r th o s e c i r c u msta nces, we can n ot saythatthe cour t abused i ts disc re ti o n in c o nc l udi ngtha t th e vi deo ’ s pr ej udi ci aleff ec t an d potenti alf orco nfusing th e j ury outweighed i ts proba ti ve value w ith resp e c t t o t he i ssu e of coercion or K evin’s demea no r f o l l o wi ngthe i nt er r o g at i o n. H aving resolved the p robab le cause and eviden tiary co nt r o ve r si es i n f av o r o fthe F o xe s, we tu r n t o the de fen dants’ ar gum ent that they a re entitle d to j ud gm ent a s a m at te r of law o n the F o xe s’ F o ur te en thAm en dm en t d u e p ro c es s c laim

— a q u es tio n w e r e v iew d e n ov o. See Thom as v. Co ok C ounty Sheri ff ’s D ep’t, 588 F. 3d 445, 451 ( 7th Cir

. 20 09)

. The defenda n ts a rgue thatthe du e pr oce ssN o. 08

- 3736 37

ve r di ctc anno t st an d b ec au se K ev i n’ s m al i ci o us pr o se cuti o n c l ai m pr o vi des a n a dequa te r emedy f o r the co nduc t unde r l y i ngthe § 1 983 due pr o ce ss c l ai m , a nd th u s c an c els ou t t h e c on st itu tio n al t or t. SeeBr o oks v. City of Chi. , 564 F.3d 83 0, 83 3 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); M cC ulla h v. Ga dert, 344 F.3d 655, 65 8- 59 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)

. The Fo xes a rgue that th e d e f e n d an ts w aiv ed th is a rg u m en t b y n otrais in g it be l o w, b uto nc e ag ain the i r v er si o n o fwai ve r slices th e sa l ami a s m i dge t o o t hin

. The de fen dan ts pr es se d the p r e c ise argu m en t the y raise on ap p eal i n th eir su m m ary j udg m en t m o ti o n a nd i n th eirRul e 59 ( e) mot i o n a nd i ncor pora ted i t byr efer ence i nto thei r R u l e 5 0( b) m oti on for j ud gm en t a s a m atter of l aw . Th ey also m oved f or a di r ec te d v er di cto n the due pr o ce ss c l ai m b as ed o n a m or e g en er ala r g um en t th atthe a l l eg edl y c o er ci ve i nterro gat i on a nd pol i c e m isc onduct did notam ount t o a due pr o ce ss v i o l at i o n. Th eypr es se d the g en er ala r g um ent a gain i n thei r Rule 50(b) m oti on f orj ud gm en t a s a m at te r of law . B ec au se th e d efe n d an ts p re se n t e d th eir due pr o ce ss a r g um en t to the di st r i ctc o urt b efo r e th e e nt r y o fj ud g men t, w e t hinkthe a r g ume nti s p r e s e r v e d. S e eHa v o c o o

f A m. , L t d

. v . S u mi t o mo C o rp . o f A m. , 97 1 F.2d 133 2, 1336 -37 (7th C ir. 1992). Turningto the m er i ts, the defendants g ai n so m e t ra cti on w i th thei r ar gum ent that the Foxe s’ sta te l aw rem edi es kn oc k ou t t h e i r su b st an tiv e d u e p ro c es s c laim

. See Brooks , 564 F.3d at83 3; M cCul l ah , 3 44 F

. 3d at 658- 59
. The S upr eme Co ur t ha s lon gc o uns el ed ag ains t sh o e- ho r ni ng i nto the m or e g ener alprotect i ons ofthe Four tee nth A m endm ent c l ai m s f orwh i ch another am endm ent pr ovid es m or e s p ec ific p ro te c tio n . See U nited Sta tes v . L a nier,38 N o. 08

- 3736 520 U

. S. 259, 272 n
. 7 (1997); A lbrig ht v. O liv er, 51 0 U.S

. 26 6, 27 3 (1994). I t al so ha s he l d, i n a l i ne o fc as es s te m m i ng f r o m Pa r r a t tv . Ta y l or, 4 51 U

. S. 52 7, 53 5- 44 ( 1981 ) , that a pl ai nti ffcannoti nvoke the substa nti ve d ue pro cess cl ause w here sta te l aw s pro vi de an adequate postdepri vatio n rem ed y for th e c om p lain ed -of c on d u c t. See M cCul l ah , 34 4 F

. 3d at6 58

- 59
. Buttha t i s whatthe F o xe s ha ve do ne he r e. I n the i r c o m pl aint, the F o xe s al l eg e th atthe de fen dants vi ol ate d K evi n’s due proc ess r i ghts w hen they “d elib er at ely fab ric at ed fals e s ta te m en ts an d d elib er at ely obs tructed j usti ce, ther eby causi ng the f al se ar re st of [ Ke v i n] , c a us i ngh i m to b e f a l s e l y i mpr i s o ne d [ a nd ] pros ecuted .

. . . ” Th ey al so al l ege thatthe defe nd ants “p rovide d f alse all egation s” an d “w ithh eld ex cu lpato ry evi dence. ” Kevi n’s due proc ess clai m thus c onsi sts o f no th i ngmor e th ana h ybrid o fhi s F o ur thAm en dm en t f al se ar re st and stat e l aw m al i ciou s p ro secuti on cl ai m s, a n d ac c or d in gly , th e d u e p ro c es s c laim is ba rre d

. See Brooks , 56 4 F

. 3d at 833; M cCann v. M angi al ar di, 33 7 F

. 3d 782, 786 (7th C ir. 2003). Perhaps re cogni zi ng the st re ngth o fthe defe nd ants’ ar g um en t, the F o xe s no w ar g ue thatKev i n’ s due pr o ce ss c l ai m i s no t conne ct ed to the c o nduc t unde r l y i ng th eir oth er clai m s, bu t inste a d r e sts on their theory that w h at h appened to Kevi n duri ng hi s inter ro gat i on “shoc ks the c onsci ence.” T he S up re m e Cour t has r eco gni zed thatpol i ce c onduct that “shoc ks the c onsci ence” su p p or ts a d u e p ro c es s c laim u n d e r § 19 83 , Rochi n v . C alif ornia , 342 U .S. 16 5 (1 95 2), an d w e h a v e a c kn ow ledged tha t a fr ee- sta nd i ng due pro cess cl ai m m ay su cc eed i n a s i tu at i o n inv o l vingc o ns ci en ce - sh o ck i ngN o. 08

- 3736 39 in te rro ga tio n ta c tic s, s e eWal l ac ev. Ci ty of Chi cago , 44 0 F.3 d 42 1, 42 9 (7th C ir. 20 06 ). T h er e is n o c lea r-c u t a n aly sis to deter m i ne wh at const i tutes “co nsci ence- shock i ng” condu c t ; the qu e s t i o n i s whe the r the c o nd uc t i s “t oo cl ose to the ra ck and the s cre w . ” SeeRo chin , 34 2 U .S. a t 1 7 2
. F o r e x a mpl e , o n th e o n e h a n d , f o r c i n ga n e me t i c d o wn a per son’ s thro at to fo rc ibl y e xtra ct e vi dence fro m a susp ec t’s st om ac h sh oc ks th e c on sc ien c e, s ee i d. , b uto n the othe r h a nd , l y i ngt o , thr e a t e ning, o r i ns ul t i nga s us pec t d oe s n ot, see Tink er v. B easley, 42 9 F

. 3d 1324, 13 29 ( 11th C ir. 2005). W e nee d not wad e into the m urkyte rr ai n bet w een th o se e xt r emes to det er m i ne o n whi che nd o fthe s pec trum the defendants’ co nd uct f al l s, be c ause the F oxes never prese nted to the j ury th eir theo rythatthe defe nd ants’ i nter ro gat i on t acti cs s hock the c onsci ence. The j ury w as i ns tr uc te d tha t i t sh o ul d fi nd f o r Kev i n o n h i s due proce ss cl ai m i f( 1) the defe nd ants cre ated fa l se evi dence orst ate m en ts b y m eans ofco er ci on, m ani pu l ati on, o r fabrication, an d ( 2) that th ose acts harm ed K evin. Th e j ury sim p ly w as n ev er i n st ru c te d th at th e d u e p ro c es s c laim turns on th e i nt er r o g at i o n t ac ti cs no r tha t i t m us t fi nd th o se t ac ti cs s ho ck i ngt o the c o ns ci en ce i n o r dert o fi nd f orKevi n. The Fo xes c annot n ow d efend the due pro cess verd ict based on a t h eory tha t w as ne ver p utbefore th e jur y. Se eSt aub , 5 6 0 F .3d at65 5-5 6; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ie nco , 92 F .3d 56 4, 57 0 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ) . B ec au se th e o n ly du e proce ss theo rypre sente d to the j ury f ai l s a s a m att er ofl aw , the ver dicto n that count m ust be se t a si de. W e di sag re e, however, with Hayes’ s co ntenti on that he i s ent itl ed to j ud gm en t as a m a tter of l aw on M eli ssa’s40 N o. 08

- 3736 I I ED cl ai m . The ev i dence attria l sho w ed that w hen H ay es he ar d M el i ss a o ffers uppo r t to Kev i n f o l l o wi ng the pol ygr aph, he b ecam e i ra te and scr ea m ed i n her f ac e, “ Yo urhusba nd’ s a fuck i ng l i ar, a nd he ’ s a fuck i ng m u r d e r er. H e nev er l oved you or your fuc king d au gh ter, and he ki l l ed h er, and yo u need to l ear n to fucki ng g et ove r i t. ” M el i ssa te sti fi ed that in that m om ent s he was te r r i fi e d a n d th a t s h e fe l t l i k e Ha y e s h a d “ c r u s h e d t he spi r i t o uto fhe r . ” The de fen dan ts a r g ue tha t H ayes’s conduct and M el i ssa ’ s r eact i on a re i nsuffi ci ent t o s u p p o r ta n I I E D c l a i m. To pre vai l o n h er II ED cl ai m under I l l i noi s l aw M el i ssa ha d t o pr o ve ( 1) tha t H ay es ’ s con d uc t w as e xt r eme a nd ou tr age ous; ( 2) thatH aye s knew thatther e was a hi gh probabi l i ty that hi s s tat em ent would cause M el i ssa se ve r e emot i o na l di st r es s; a nd ( 3) th at H ay es ’ s co m m en t in fac t c au se d M eli s s a s ev er e e m ot ion al d ist re ss . See Kolegas v. He

f t e l Br oadc as t i ng Corp
. , 154 I ll

. 2d 1 , 2 0 ( 1992 ). W e think t hat sh e ha s m ade a s tr o ngs ho wi ngo n the fi rst tw o factors, an d that the stren gth of th ose factors com pensates f orthe w eak n es s ofthe evi dence w i th re sp ec t t o t h e t h ird

. See H ona ker v. Sm ith , 256 F. 3d 477, 49 6 (7th C ir. 2001). Forco nd uct t o be e xtre m e a nd o utra geou s itm ust g o “bey ond al l bo und s o fdecency” and be “co nsi dered i ntol erab le in a ci vi l i zed co m m unity. ” Lopez v. Ci ty of Chi ., 4 6 4 F. 3d 711, 721 (7th Cir. 2006) (ci tations om itted ). A n i m p ortan t factor i n th is analysis i s w he th er a d efe n d a n t a b u se d a p os itio n of au th or ity
. Se eKol egas , 15 4 I l l

. 2d at21 ( ci ti ng M cG rath v. Fa hey, 12 6 I ll. 2d 78 , 86

- 87N o. 08

- 3736 41 (1988)). “[T]he ex trem e and outrag eou s ch aract er of a defe nd ant’ s conduct m ay ar i se, not so m uch f ro m w hat he sa ys ordoe s, but fro m the defe nd ant’ s i m properuse ofa posi ti on o fpow erwh i ch gi ves hi m t h e abi l i ty to advers el y a ffect the pl ai nti ff’ s inter est s. ” Id. at 22. W ha t’s m or e, the fir st and seco nd f acto rs bl eed i nto each o ther b e c a us e , a s the I l l i no i s S up re me Co ur th a s n o t e d, “[b ]eh av ior t h at m igh t o th er w ise be co n sid er ed m er ely rude, abr asi ve ori nconsi derat e, m ay be dee m ed outrag eo us i fthe de fen dan t k no ws tha t th e pl aint i ffis par ti cul ar l y s usceptibl e t o em oti onaldi str ess . ” Id. at21

. H er e, we th i nkHay es ’ s ab us e o fhi s au th o r i ty, i nv o l ving an o bvi ousl y v u l nerabl e m othe r and w i fe, bo ost s what ot h er w ise m igh t b e c h ar ac te riz ed as a p ar tic u lar ly u gly i n s u l ta c r o s s th e t hr es h o l d i n t o a v a l i d I I E D c l a i m. At th e m om en t he m ad e th e com m en t, H ayes w as th e sup ervis or in c h ar ge of K ev in ’s in te rro ga t ion . H e h ad K ev in und erar re st and w as thre aten in g to charg e hi m with R iley ’s m u rd er . E ss en tia l ly, atth at m om en t, a jur y c ou ld ea si l y fi nd tha t H aye s he l d M el i ss a’ s f ami l y l i fe i n the ba l an ce a nd he e xpl o i te d hi s po si ti o n o fpo wert o i nt en ti onal l y c ause her dist re ss. W hat’s m ore, he knew that as th e m o t h e r of a recen tly m urd ered child an d the w ife of t h e m an ac c u se d , sh e w as p a r tic u lar ly su sc ep tib le to e m o ti o na l di st r es s. Al th o ug h i t i s true tha t th e evi dence showed th at M el i ssa ’ s di str ess st em m i ng fro m hi s co m m ent m ay h av e been shor t- l i ved, the du ra ti on of d ist re ss is on ly on e fa c to r th at m u st be w e igh ed

. See H o n a k er, 2 56 F

. 3d at4 97
. As we ha ve no te d, “ i n many ca se s th e ex tr eme a nd o ut rageou s ch ar ac te r o fthe de fen dan t ’ s c o n d u c t i s i n i t s e l f i mpo r t a n t e v i d e n c e th a tt he42 N o. 08

- 3736 dist re ss has e xi ste d.” Id. at 496 ( quo tingRe st at ement ofT or ts , 2 d). W e thi nk tha t thi s i s s uch a ca se, and accor dingl y Hayes is n ot enti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m att er o fl a w o n Me l i s s a ’ s I I E D c l a i m. N ext, we turn t o the defendants’ ar gum ent that they ar e e nti tl ed to a ne w t ria l based on w hat they c hara cte r i ze a s pr ej udi ci ale r r o r s i n the j ur y i ns truct i o ns . Our re vi ew of j ury i nstr ucti ons i s l i m i ted; we ask w hether th e i ns truct i o ns a s a whol e wer e su ffi ci en t to infor m the j u ry of th e ap p lica b le law

. La sley v . M o ss , 50 0 F

. 3d 586, 58 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 )

. We wi l l r e v e r s e o nl y i fa n i ns t r uc t i on so mis l ed the jury tha t th e defi ci en cypr ej udi ce d the defe nd ants. See C ruz v. Sa ffo rd, 57 9 F.3d 84 0, 84 3 ( 7th C ir. 2009). Fi rs t, the defe nd ants ar gue that the di str i ct c ourter ro neou sly refu se d to ins tr u c t t h e jur y t h at it i s im p er m iss ible to a war d dupl i ca ti ve da m ag es . S pec ifi ca l l y, the y a r g ue that the j ury shoul d have be en i ns tr u c te d “to adj ust dam a g e s b a s e d o n the di s t i nc ti nj ur y s uffe r e d, ” b e c a us e, ac co r di ngt o the de fen dan ts , the c l aims f o r mal i ci o us pr o se cut i o n, f al se a r r es t, a nd due p ro ce ss r es te d o n the sam e co nd uct and ga ve ri se to th e s am e inj uri es. The dist ri ct cour t r efused the defe nd ants’ pro posed i nstr ucti on because i t found that th e j u ry f or m pro tect ed aga i nst th e ri sko fdupl i ca ti ve da m ag es b y s epa r at i ngthe cl ai m s a nd r equi ring the j ury to aw ar d dam age s o n each d i s t i n c tc l a i m. A s a n i ni ti alm att er, co unsel f orthe d efe n dants di d not m ee t th ei r o bl i g at i o n t o e xpl ain t o the di st r i ctc o ur t why th e ve r di ctf orm w as i ns uffi ci en t to pr o te cta g ains t th eN o. 08

- 3736 43 ris k of d u p lica tiv e d am ag es . See F e d . R

. Civ. P. 51(c); Cons um e rPr o ds. Res e ar ch & D e s ign , 5 72 F

. 3d at4 38

- 39

. But eve n i fco unsel h ad fully deve l oped the ar gum ent, gi ven o urr ul i ngtha t th e due pr o ce ss c l aim ca nno t st an d, the dupl i ca ti ve da m ag es a r g um en t l o se s i ts t ee th

. Vi ewing the f al se arre st and m al i ci ous pr ose cuti on ve rdi cts w i th the defer ence they ar e d ue, there i s no ev i dence ofdup l i cation. The j ur y was i ns truct ed o n the l eg aldi st i nc ti o ns b et w ee n th e t w o c lai m s . It as se ss ed d am ag es ag ain st all fi ve defe nd ants on the f al se ar re st cl ai m , but only aga i nst H aye s a n d Sw ear engen on the m al i ci ous- pros ecuti on claim

. Th at ver d ic t d em ons trates th at th e j ury u nd ersto od thatse parat e co nd uct and har m s c or responded to the di stinct clai m s. A ccor dingl y, the defe nd ants have not dem on s t r a t e d tha tthe y we r e p r ej ud i c e d b y the di s t r i ct cour t’ s deci si on not to gi ve thei r propos ed d u p l i cati ve d am ag es ins tr u c tio n . Se eCr uz , 57 9 F

. 3d at 843. N ext, the defe nd ants ar gue that the di str i ct c ourter ro neousl y rej ecte d thei r i nstr ucti on i nfo rm i ng the j ury that K evi n fail ed to m i ti gat e hi s dam age s be cause he di d not m ove to su p p re ss hi s co nfe ssi on i n hi s cr i m i nal cas e. B u t the di str i ct c ourtr ej ecte d the pro posed i nstr ucti on w ith ou t p rej u d ice , tellin g t h e d efe n d an ts th at th ey co u ld fil e a ne w m i ti g at i o n ins truct i o n o m i tt i ngthe o ne sente nce r efer enci ng Kevi n’s f ai l ure to fi l e a m oti on t o supp re ss. Cou n self orthe defe nd ants did noto bj ect to that rul i ng, and on a pp ealthe defe nd an ts have not argued th atthe y t en der ed a r ev i se d i ns truct i o n a s th e cour t r equeste d. A ccor dingl y, theyhave waive d their ar g um en t wi thr es pec t to the mit i g at i o n ins truct i o n.44 N o. 08

- 3736 The defe nd ants al so ar gue that the di str i ct c ourter ro neo us l y e xc l ude d the i r pr o po se d i ns truct i o n inf o r m ing the j u ry th at K ev in is n o t c on st itu tio n ally en tit led to a fu ll p oli ce inves tigation or spec ific testing. T he d is trict court poi nt ed o ut thatKevi n neverar gued that he was en ti tl ed to tho se thi ng s; i ns te ad, he a r g ue d tha t th e defen dants i ntenti onal l y obstr ucted DN A te sting and fra m ed h i m f o r th e mu r d e r . Un d e r th o s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s , we agree with the di str i ct c ourtthatthe propos ed i nstr ucti ons w er e m or e l i kel y t o confuse, than t o ass i st, the j ury. Theirexcl usi on di d not pr ej ud i ce the defendants. The defe nd ants’ l astargum ent pertaini ng to j ury i nstr uctions is that th ey w ere p rej ud iced by the district cou rt’s denia l o fthei r re quest to exci se a r efer ence to W i l l County f r o m o n e o f th e i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g d a ma g es . The defe nd ants ar gue that the i nstr ucti on f al sel y s ugges ted th atW il l Co unty ’ s dee p po ck et s woul d c o ve r the d am age s, thus l oo seni ng the j ury’ s inhibi ti ons about a l ar ge dam age s a w ar d. T h ey saythatthe Foxe s’ at torney m ad e this su ggestion exp li cit w he n sh e told th e j ury i n cl o s i ngtha ti ts ho ul d a wa r d d a mag e s tha t“ s e nd a m ess age to W i l l County. ” But th e defendants di d not ob j ec t t o t h at co m m en t w h en it w as m ad e, se e Lewis , 59 0 F

. 3d at4 44, a nd the i r o wn at to r ne y s r epe at edl y r efere n c e d th e “ Wi l l C o u n t y D e fe n d a n t s ” d u r i n gth e t r i a l

. As a resu lt, t h e r e i s no reason to sup p ose th at th ey w ere pr ej udi ce d b y the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s j ur y i ns truct i o n de ci si o n. As we me n t i o n e d i n a f o o tn o t e ma n y p a g e s a g o , t wo i nsurer s, the A m er i can A l ternati ve I nsurance Corpor ati on and the Essex I nsurance Com pany, w er e gr ante d lea veN o. 08

- 3736 45
to i nt er ve ne i n the c as e f o r pur po se s o fa ppea l i ngthe pu ni t i v e da mag e a wa r ds

. Le a v e t o j o i n i n wa s g r anted afterthe defe n d an ts enter ed i nto an ag re em ent t o ass i gn thei r i nd i vi du alr i ghts and i nter es ts in tw o i nsurance pol i ci es to the F oxes i n exchange f ora pu rpor ted “Rel eas e ofPer sonalLi abi l i ty To S ati sfy The Puni ti ve Dam age A w ar d .” T h e in d ivid u al d efe n d an ts th en sim u lta n eo u sly w i thdrew thei r appeal of the pu ni ti ve dam ag e aw ar ds. The i nter venor s se ek re ver salo fthe pu ni ti ve dam age aw ar d s o r, alt er n at ive ly, a re m an d for a n ew tria l. T he i nt erven ors argue that the p un iti ve d a m age verdict s a re i nconsi ste nt. The i n d ivid ual defendants di d not obj ect to t h e sup p osed i nc ons istenc y before the j ury d isban d ed, s o the F o xe s as se r t th atthe pr es en t ar g um ent has bee n w ai ved. S ev er al c i rcui ts have hel d that the f ai l ure to l odge a c ontem pora neous obj ecti on t o an inc on sis te n t v er d ict c on st itu te s a w aiv er , s ee, e.g., Kosm ynka v. Po laris Indus. , Inc. , 462 F .3d 74, 83 (2d Cir. 20 06 ); Oja v. How m edic a, Inc. , 11 1 F

. 3d 782, 79 0 ( 10th C ir. 1997); Ho m e Ind em . Co . v. Lan e P o w ell M o ss & M iller, 43 F. 3d 1322 , 13 31 ( 9th Ci r. 19 95) , but w e hav e l eft that q u es t i o n o p en , see P earso n v . Welbo rn , 47 1 F

. 3d 732, 73 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2006); C a rter v. C hi. P o lice O fficers , 16 5 F

. 3d 1071 , 10 7 9

- 8 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 )

. We ne e d n o tr e s o l v e the questi on here , bec ause w e f ai l to se e a ny i nconsi ste ncy. A new tri al b as ed on inconsi ste nt ve rdi cts i s warr anted o nl y whena j ur y ’ s ve r di ctc anno t be r ec o nc i l ed wi ththe ev id en c e a t t ria l. Pears on , 47 1 F

. 3d at 739. A ny pl ausib le ex p lan at ion for t h e v er d ict p re c lu d es rev er sa l. C a rter, 16 5 F

. 3d at 10 81

. H er e, th e i nt er ve no r s ar g ue that the46 N o. 08

- 3736 j ury’ s fi nd i ng i n f avo r ofthe defe nd ants on Kevi n’s f al se i m pri sonm ent c l ai m cannotbe r eco nci l ed w i th i ts fi nd i ngs forKevi n on the f al se ar re st and m al i ci ous pr ose cuti on cl ai m s. S peci fi cal l y, the y note that f al se i m pri sonm ent r equi re s a fi nd i ng tha t the o ffi cer s la cked pr o babl e ca us e an d tha t th ei r c ond uc t w as wi l l fula nd w anton. They a rgue that the j ury’ s find i ng o n f al se i m pri sonm ent i m p lies either that i t found no pro babl e ca use, whi chwoul d b e i nc o ns i st en t wi ththe f al se a r r est a nd m al i ci ou s p ro se cut i o n fi ndi ng s, o r tha t i t f o und tha t th e und er l yi ng con du ct was notwil l ful and w anton, wh i ch w oul d be i nconsi ste nt with the punit i ve dam age awards. B ecau se w e review the find ings in t h e li gh t m ost favorab le t o t h e v er d ict s, C a rter, 1 6 5 F

. 3 d a t10 7 9 , w e p r e s u me that the j ury f ound a l ack ofpro babl e ca use b ut di d not ag r ee tha t th e d efend an ts ’ c o nduc t was wi l l fula nd want o n. Thu s, the que st i o n i s whethe r a l ac ko fwi l l fula nd wa nt o n c o nd uc tc a n b e s qu a r e d wi th the p uni ti ve dam age s o n th e f al se ar re st and m al i ci ous pr ose cuti on cl ai m s. I t ca n. The c o ur t i ns truct ed th e j ur y tha t wi l l ful and w anton conduct sho w s “an actual o r del iber ate i ntenti on t o cause harm o r, i fnoti ntenti onal, sho w s a n utter in d iffer ence to orco nsci ous di sr ega rd f orthe safety ofo ther s . . . . ” I t instr ucted the j ury that pu ni ti ve dam age s coul d be asse sse d i fi t found that the defendants’ conduct w as m al i ci ous o r re ckl ess . I t e xplai ned that m al i ci ous c onduct “i s a ccom pa n i ed by i l l wil l o r spi te or i s d o n e fo r th e p u rp os e o f inju rin g p lain tiffs .” U n d er th is seto fi nstru c tio n s i t i s pl ausibl e that the j ury concl ud ed that the o ffi cer s’ act i ons w er e no t r eckl ess o r del iber ate ,N o. 08

- 3736 47 b u t t h at th ey w er e “ ac c om p a n ied by ill w ill or sp ite .” Because there i s a pl ausibl e ba si s t o fi nd the ver dict s c on sis te n t, a n ew tria l is n otw ar ra n te d

. Id. at10 81. T he de fend an ts also argue th at th e d is trict court shoul d have g ra nted thei r m oti on f ora ne w tri albec ause, acco rdi ng to them , th e c om pensato rydam age s a re exce ssive w ith resp e c t to the false arrest clai m and M eli ssa’s cl ai m s f o r l o ss o fc o ns ortium a nd I I ED. W e r ev i ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on not to gr ant a new tri albas ed on ex c es siv e d am ag es on ly for ab u se o fd isc re tio n . Thom as , 5 8 8 F

. 3 d a t4 6 1

. I n r e v i e win gw h e th e r a n a wa r d o fc o mpensato rydam age s i s un re aso nabl y l ar ge, we ask “w hetherthe aw ar d i s ‘ m onst ro usl y ex c es si ve, ’ ‘ w hether th er e is no r at i o na l c o nne ct i o n b etwee n the a war d a nd the e vi dence, ’ and w hetherthe aw ar d i s co m parabl e t o thos e in si m i l arcas es. ” Id. at46 3 ( quoti ng N ae e m v. M cKe s s on D r ug Co. , 444 F.3d 5 9 3, 61 1 (7 th C ir. 20 06 )); see a lso Hend rickson v. C o o per, 589 F.3d 887, 892 (7th C ir. 2009). T he de fend an ts argu e tha t t h e $2.7 m il li on aw ard for M elis sa ’s los s o fc o n so rt iu m is so ex c es siv e t h at it sh oul d “shockthe j ud i ci alco nsci ence. ” S e eR i c h a r d s o n v. Chapm an , 175 I l l

. 2d 98 , 11 3 ( 19 97 )

. But th ei r ar g um en t f ai l s to a cc o untf or the u ni que c i r cumst an ce s unde r l y i ng M el i ssa ’ s cl ai m . Duri ng Kevi n’s incar cer ati on M el i ssa wa s s e pa ra ted fr o m he r ma i n s o ur c e o fe mot i o na l s up p ort at a ti m e w he n sh e w a s c op ing w ith ex traord inary g r i e f

. S h e wa s l e fta l o n e t o h e l p Ty l e r d e a l wi th h i s o wn g r i e f a n d fe a r a n d wa s th r u s t i n t o th e p o s i t i o n o fb ei ng a s i ngl e par ent to h im a t a ti m e when Tyle r m ostneeded th e sup p o r t o f both pa rent s. She w as forced to end ure48 N o. 08

- 3736 Ril ey’ s bi rthd ay and the fi rst an ni ver sar y o fherdeath w i thout K evi n, w hom she tes ti fi ed w as the onl y p erson who co ul d unde r st an d tho se e xpe r i en ce s. I n s ho r t, the ei ght m onths ofKevi n’s i ncarc er ati on ca m e a t a cr uci al m om ent in thei r m arria ge, and acco rdi ngl y there i s a ra ti onalco nnecti on be tw een the e vidence a nd the subst an tia l aw ar d

. See N a eem , 4 44 F. 3d at 611. A nd al though the a w ar d und eni abl y i s hi gh, i t i s no t o ut o f line w i th othe r l oss of conso rt i um verdi cts up hel d by I l l i noi s co urts
. Se e, e . g. , Ve l ar dev. Il l

. Ce nt r al R. R. Co. , 354 I l l

. A pp . 3d 52 3, 543 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 20 04) ( up hol ding $3. 5 m il l i on l oss o f c on so rt iu m cla im ); De Yo u n g v . Alp h a Co n s t r . Co. , 186 Il l. App. 3 d 7 58 , 7 65

- 67( I l l

. App. Ct

. 1 98 9) ( upho l di ng $3.6 m il li on loss of society aw ard f or de ath of 75-yearold). Gi ve n the c i r cumst an ce s, we do no t thin kthe distri ct c o ur t ab us ed i ts di sc r et i o n in c o nc l udi ngtha t th e $ 2 .7 m illion aw ar d is n ot“m on st ro u sly ex c es siv e.” Se eThom as , 58 8 F

. 3d at 463. By c o nt r a s t, the e v i dence do e s n o tc o me c l o s e t o s up p orting th e $ 1 m il li on com p en satory aw ard f or M eli ssa’s I I ED cl ai m . The Fo x es h av e pointed to no evi dence that any o fherl i nger i ng em oti onalpro blem s a re l i nked to her shor t inter acti on with H aye s. There i s no co nnecti on between the evi dence thatshe w as ter rifi ed and that her “sp iri t w as cru sh ed ” an d the j ury’s $1 m il li on aw ard aga i nst Hayes on this cl ai m . N orhave the Foxe s pointed t o a ny ca s e s u ph o l di ngc o mpa r a b l e a wa r ds f o r a n I I ED cl ai m b as ed o n the f al l o uto fa b r i efv erba l i nt er act i o n. I nd eed, the c a s e s we f o un d a ffi r mi ngda mag e a wa r ds f orI I ED c l ai m s ba sed o n verbalal ter cati ons i nvol ved aw ar d s n o gr ea te r th an $1 50 ,00 0. Se e, e . g., Li t t l e f i e l d v

.N o. 08

- 3736 49 M cG uffey, 954 F.2d 13 37, 13 4 8

- 4 9 (7 th C ir. 19 92 ); Web b v. C ity of Chest er, Ill

. , 813 F.2 d 8 2 4 , 837 (7th C ir. 1987). Acco r di ng l y, we ag r ee wi ththe de fen dan ts thatthe $1 m i l l i on a w ar d fo r M el i ssa ’ s I I ED cl ai m i s e xcessi ve. Si m i l ar l y, we thi nk the di str i ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re ti o n in b r us hi ngpa stthe de fen dan ts ’ a r g um en t th atthe $1

. 6 m i l l i o n f al se a r r es t awar d t o Kevi n ( ex cl udi ng R u et tig er ) is ex c es siv e. D am ag es on a fa l s e a rre st cla im c ov er th e p er iod of d et en tio n fro m a p lain tiff’s arr es t u n til th e firs t is su an c e o f p ro c es s. See Wa l l a ce v. Ka to , 549 U

. S. 38 4, 38 9- 9 0 (20 07 ); Sno dde r l y v . R. U
. F. F. D r ug Enfo r ce m e nt Ta skFo rc e, 23 9 F

. 3d 892, 89 9- 900 n. 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)

. Kev in w as arr e st ed (i. e., no t fre e t o lea ve ) sh or tly aft er 8 p .m ., on Octo ber26 , 20 04. H e a pp ear ed i n c ou rt o n Octobe r 28. Forth is, the j ury aw ar ded $1

. 7 m i l l i on, a sta gge ring r ate o fabo ut$ 1, 10 0 permin ut e. The F o xe s as sert wi th o ut ar gum ent that the f al se ar re st aw ar d cove rs the 84 days between Kevi n’s ar re st and hi s a rr ai gnm ent. But a s tat e j ud ge deter m in ed a t the fi rs t hea ring tha t there was suffi ci ent b asi s t o detai n K evi n f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs. I t i s har d to se e how thatpro ceedi ng co uld be vi ew ed as an yt h in g ot h er th an th e is su an c e o f p ro c e s s , see Young v. D avis , 5 54 F

. 3d 12 54, 1 25 7 ( 10th Ci r . 2 00 9) , a nd acco rdi ngl y we ag re e that the f als e ar re st dam age s ca n co ve r o n l y s o me 3 6 h o u r s o fd e t e n t i o n th a tp r e c e d e d the hear i ng. There i s n o w ay to br i dge the ga p between such a b rie f d et en tio n an d a $1 .7 m illion aw ar d . E sp ec ially because t h e j u ry awarded l ess than hal fthatam ount o n Kev i n’ s m al i ci o us pr o se cut i o n cla i m , whi chc o ve r ed th e re m ain in g 2 4 2 d ay s o f h is in c ar c er at ion , th e a w ar d is s i mpl y u n s u p p o r t e d b y th e e v i d e n c e . Ac c o r d i n g l y, we50 N o. 08

- 3736 agr ee w i th the defendants t h at the f al se ar re st dam age a wa r d c a nn o ts t a nd

. Butc o nt r ar y t o the de fen dants ’ a ss er ti o ns tha t th e exce ssiv e dam age s r equi re a new tr i al, we bel i eve a r emi tt i tu ri s th e appr o pr i at e rem ed y t o c o r r ec t an y er ro r th at m ay h av e o c c u rre d

. See R a m sey v . Am . Air F ilter Co. , 772 F.2d 13 03 , 131 4 (7 th C ir. 19 85 ); Ric har ds on , 175 Il l. 2d a t 11 5; W rig h t, M iller & K an e, 21 6-1 7 F edera l P rac tice & P roc e du re § 2 820 ( 2d ed. 19 95 & S up p. 20 09)

. Thi s i s no t a c a s e wh e r e the I I ED o r f a l s e a r r e s tcl a i ms a r e u ns up po r te d a s a m at te r o fl aw ; the pr o bl em i s si m pl y tha t th e j ury ove rco m pensated the Foxe s f or thos e tw o cl ai m s. The tr i ali n thi s ca se w as l ong, i n tensi ve, and, fro m wh at w e ca n see from t he r eco rd, co ntenti ous. M or e than 4 0 wi tne s s e s t o o kthe s t a nd

. Ev e r y o ne i nv o l v e d ma de su bsta nt iali nv estm e n ts of their tim e and m one y. T he re i s no ne ed to squ an dertho se i nv es tment s when a r e mi t t i t u rc a n r e s o l v e th e o v e r c o mp e n s a t i o n p r o b l e m. T hu s, w ith resp ect to M eli ssa’s II E D clai m , w e orde r a r e mi t t i t u r to $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0
. A s fo r K e v i n ’ s f a l s e a r r e s tc l a i m, w e o rdera re m i ttitur t o $16, 000 ( $5, 000 each fro m H aye s, S w ear engen, and Gu ilfoyl e a nd $1 , 000 f ro m W ac ht l )

. I fthe F o xe s do no t co ns en t to th e r emi tt i tu r s, the dist ri ct c ourti s instr ucted to gr ant the m oti on f ora new t r i a l o n th e q u es tio n of d am ag es for t h e t w o c laim s. See Spray- Rit eSe r v. Corp. v. M ons ant o Co. , 68 4 F

. 2d 1226 , 12 44 (7th C ir. 1982). The r emai nde r o fthe a r g um en ts r ai se d b y the defe nd ants and i nter venor s f ocus on thei r ass er ti on that the punit i ve dam age awa rd s cannot sta nd bec auseN o. 08

- 3736 51 th eya r e l i st ed se par at ely i n th e j ur y v er di ctf o r m a nd th us ar e untethere d to any o fthe parti cul arcl ai m s. They ar gue that be cause ther e i s o nl y a ge nera l ve rdi ct with re spect to the punit i ve dam age awa rds, ther e i s no way to kn ow how m uc h of th e p un iti ve d am age aw ard s a re t i e d t o Ke v i n’ s I I ED cl ai m ( whi c h, the y a r g ue , a l r e a dy i nc l ude s a puni ti ve e l ement ) o r the subst an ti ve due proce ss cl ai m o n w hi ch theyar e e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent as a m at te r o fl aw. The se a r g um en ts r es t en ti r ely o n wha t th e d efe n d an ts an d int er ve n or s n ow as se rtis an inc or re c tly st r uctur ed ve r di ctf o r m , b uta s th e F o xe s co r r ec tly po i nt out, the defe nd ants nevero bj ecte d to th e str ucture of th e v er d ict form attria l, n or d id t h e y p ro p os e t h eir own ve rs i on o fthe j ury f or m . A ccor d ingl y, theyhave wa i v e d the i r a r g ume nttha tth e p un i t i v e da mag e a wa r ds cannot sta nd bec ause the v er dictf or m does notti e them to speci fi c subs tanti ve cl ai m s. See Gagan v. Am
. Cab l e vi s i on, Inc. , 77F. 3d 951, 96 6 ( 7th Ci r. 199 6); R osari o v. Livaditis , 96 3 F.2d 10 13 , 10 22 n .4 (7t h C ir. 19 92 ); Per ry v . La rs on , 794 F.2d 279, 285 (7th Cir. 1986). Wi th r e s p e c tt o Kev i n ’ s s u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m, the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ou rt is V ACATED a nd the m atter R E MA NDED w i thi ns truct i o ns t o e nt erj udg m en t f orthe defe nd ants. W i th r espectto K evin’ s f al se ar re st cl ai m an d M el i ss a’ s I I ED cl ai m , i fthe F o xe s co ns en t to the r e mi t t i t ur s we h a v e o r de r e d, th e awa r d o n M e l i s s a ’ s I I ED claim w il l be red uc ed to $150 ,0 0 0. T he aw ard on K evin’s f al se ar re st cl ai m wil l be re du ced to $1 6, 000. Thu s, to sum m ar i ze, o fthe $12 ,20 0,000 in pla y o n thi s a pp eal, the Foxe s m ay h ave j ud gm ent for$8 , 166, 00052 N o. 08

- 3736 i fthe re m i tti turs we have o rder ed ar e a ccepted. I fnot, they m ay have j ud gm ent for$8 , 000, 000 and a new tr i al on the two claim s that we have cut ba ck. But w e has ten to a dd tha t i fthe F o xe s el ec t t o ha ve a ne w tr i alo n the claims we ha ve r edu ce d, a ny ne w awar d, c o ns i der i ngthe su b st an tia l d am ag es aw ar d ed on t h e o t h er cla im s, w ill have to be c l ose to the vic in ity w e hav e s ugges ted to be susta i ned as r eas onabl e. For allthes e reason s, th e j ud gm en t of th e d istri ct cou rt i s A FFI RMED i n pa r ta nd R EVER S ED a nd V A C A TED i n p art co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

4- 7- 10