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 SIXTH MOTION IN LIMINE TO 

BAR REFERENCE TO THE LENGTH OR

 DETAILS OF MR. HOLMES’ SENTENCE

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

response to plaintiff’s sixth motion in limine to bar reference to the length or details of 

Mr. Holmes’ sentence states: 

 In plaintiff’s sixth motion in limine he seeks to limit any mention of the 

circumstances of his incarceration at WCADF to the fact that he was there from 

September 13, 2001, to October 12, 2001. Throughout plaintiff’s motions in limine he is 

attempting to force the jury to consider this case in a vacuum and in a highly sanitized 

condition. Plaintiff has brought this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1983 alleging serious 

violations of his Eighth Amendment rights, he claims rise to the level of cruel and 

unusual punishment. It must be kept in mind that on September 13, 2001, plaintiff was 

sentenced to three years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. The reason he was 

still at the WCADF was that he was allowed to remain there for evaluation for the 

T.A.S.C. treatment/probation program. 

Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 112 Filed: 05/01/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:800
 While plaintiff claims this three year sentence did not reflect Judge Rozak’s view 

of the seriousness of the offense, that was, in fact, the sentence that was originally 

imposed. While plaintiff argues all that is relevant is that he was at WCADF, for “some 

crime,” the jury has a right to know why he was there. Allowing the jury to only know 

that plaintiff was sentenced, for something (without allowing them to know what that 

sentence was, or what it was for) and that he was released on probation a month later 

would allow them to speculate wildly on what Mr. Holmes actually was convicted of, 

what his sentence was, or why he was at WCADF in the first place. 

 Further, plaintiff states in his motion that the reason he was released on October 

12, 2001, was because Julie Sterr “pleaded with the judge to release” him and refers this 

court to the court’s docket which is attached to the motion as Exhibit C. A review of 

minute entry for October 12, 2001, does not reflect any such action by Julie Sterr or 

anyone else. All that is reflected is that a hearing was held on plaintiff’s motion to 

reconsider his sentence, attended by the state’s attorney and Mr. Holmes public defender. 

After that hearing plaintiff’s three year sentence was vacated and he was placed an 

T.A.S.C. probation for 60 months. 

 Plaintiff no doubt plans on calling Ms. Sterr in an attempt to testify concerning 

this alleged reason for plaintiff’s release. It would be inequitable for plaintiff to attempt 

to show an alleged reason for plaintiff’s release from incarceration but not allow 

defendant to show why plaintiff was incarcerated at the WCADF after being convicted of 

a felony. 

Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 112 Filed: 05/01/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:801
 WHEREFORE, defendant, Dr. Kul Sood respectfully requests this Honorable 

Court deny plaintiff’s Sixth 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 #: 112 Filed: 05/01/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:802
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 #: 112 Filed: 05/01/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:803