IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION 

EDWARD HOLMES, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 02 C 7266 

 v. ) 

 ) Judge Brown 

DR. KUL SOOD, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION IN LIMINE

TO BAR REFERENCE TO PRIOR ARRESTS 

EXCEPT FOR THE MARCH 2001 ARREST

 Defendant, Dr. Kul Sood, by his attorneys Charysh & Schroeder, Ltd., for his 

response to plaintiff’s second motion in limine to bar reference to prior arrests except the 

March 2001 arrest states: 

 After careful review of the parameters of plaintiff’s Second Motion in limine and 

the cases cited therein, defendant does not have an objection to the motion with regard to 

plaintiff’s prior arrests, except to the extent it would restrict inquiry into the charge which 

plaintiff was convicted of when incarcerated in WCADF, as well as the previous relevant 

convictions (which is the subject of plaintiff’s First Motion in Limine and defendant’s 

response thereto). 

 With regard to the arrest of Tim Smith, such evidence is relevant to his testimony. 

Evidence of this arrest is necessary for the jury to put his testimony in the proper light. 

Plaintiff claims that the reason why Mr. Smith was present at WCADF is wholly 

irrelevant. This simply is not true. Mr. Smith was a fellow inmate at WCADF. If the 

jury is not informed that he was arrested they could reach the incorrect conclusion that 

Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 108 Filed: 05/01/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:772
Mr. Smith was a visitor, staff, otherwise at the facility of his own free will and able to 

leave when he wished. This was not true, and the jury should not be left with that 

impression. 

 Further, such evidence is relevant to show the bias Mr. Smith may have against all 

who are associated with Will County and the WCADF, as well as his empathy for Mr. 

Holmes. Smith was arrested and charged with murder. He was later acquitted. It is not a 

stretch to imagine he may harbor a bias against those who work at the jail where he was 

incarcerated, including defendant, on a charge he was later acquitted of. Court’s have 

allowed the admission of previous arrests to show bias. See Heath v. Cast, 813 F.2d 254 

(9th Dist. 1987) 

 As such, the arrest and charge against Mr. Smith are relevant and their probative 

value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. In fact, as Mr. 

Smith was acquitted of the crime, it should have little or no prejudicial effect on his 

character. 

 WHEREFORE, defendant, Dr. Kul Sood respectfully requests this Honorable 

Court deny plaintiff’s Second Motion in Limine, and grant such other further relief as the 

court deems just and proper. 

 CHARYSH & SCHROEDER, LTD. 

 

 _/s/ Michael J. Charysh___________

Michael J. Charysh (ARDC 6187455) 

CHARYSH & SCHROEDER, LTD. 

33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1300 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

(312) 372-8338 

Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 108 Filed: 05/01/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:773
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned attorney certifies that he served a copy of the foregoing documents 

on all attorneys of record via electronic notification to EFC participants, and by U.S. Mail to 

non-EFC participants at their respective addresses by depositing copies of same with proper 

postage prepaid in the U.S. Mail at 33 North Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois at or before 

5:00 p.m. on May 1, 2006. 

 

 By: /s/ Michael J. Charysh__

 Attorney for Defendant 

SERVICE LIST: 

Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 108 Filed: 05/01/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:774