## In the



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

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 2319 M ANUEL G AL VAN, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. T HO M AS N O RBERG , etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

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 . 1:04- cv-04003

—E dmon d E . C hang, Judge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 4, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AY 7, 2012

Befo re E A S T E RB R O OK, Chie f Judg e, a nd F L A U M an d M A NI ON, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . Man ue l Ga l v a n fi l e d a § 1 9 83 action against C hicag o police officers Th o m a s N orberg an d A lan L u c as , see kin g d am ag es aris in g fro m a tr affic s t o p, a v e hi c l e s e a r c h, a nd an a r r e s t
. Ga l v a n c o nt e nd s th atthe o f fi ce r s l ack ed pr o babl e ca us e, wher ea s th e offi cer s m ai ntai n that theywere f ol l owing up o n an an o ny m o us t i p tha t Luca s ha d r ec ei ve d. Af te r the j ury2 N o. 11

- 2319

r etur ne d a v er di cti n f avor o fde f en dan ts Norbe r ga nd Luca s, Ga l va n mov ed f o r a ne w tr i al

. J udg e S ha dur gr anted the m oti on but w i thou t givingdefendants an opportunity t o re spond. H e r ule d that th e ve rdi ct was ag ai ns t th e m an i f es t wei g hto fthe e vi den ce , r ea so ni ng that Lu cas had fabri cate d the t i p and that the o ther offi cer s o f f er ed f alse te sti m ony to supp or t thi s f abr i cati on. J ud ge Shadur then rec u se d him sel f, and the case w as re ass i gn ed t o J ud ge Ch ang. Def endants m ove d to re consi der th e n ew tr i alo rder

. J ud ge Ch ang g ra nted thei r m oti on a nd r ei nstat ed the ver dict

. W e co ncl ud e that J ud ge Ch ang di d not abuse his di scr eti on b y reconsi deri ng the new tri algr ant, a non- fi nal or der, and deter m i ni ng that the j ury’ s v er dictwas not aga i nst the m ani f estweight o fthe evi dence. T here was no di r ec t ev i d en ce c o nt r adi ct i ngLuc as ’ s te st i m o ny abou t th e tip, th ere w as oth er evid en ce to s u p p ort th i s testi m o ny, a nd the j ur y was abl e to wei g h the i nc o nsi ste nci es and m ake cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati ons. W e there

f o r e affi r m the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s reinsta te m en t o fthe ver dicti n f avo r ofdefendants.

I . B a c kg r o und A. F a c t ua l B a c kg r o und Of fi ce r Luc as c l ai m s th at he was s ta ndi ngne arthe fro n t desk in the pol i ce s tat i on o n Decem ber30 , 20 02 w hen he a nsw er ed a phone cal l

. The cal l eras ked wh ether an y “ n ar c s” w er e w or kin g, re fer rin g t o p olic e o ffice rs in ci vi l i a n d r e s s a n d u n ma r k e d c a r s . Aft e r L u c a s t o l d theN o. 11

- 2319 3 cal l erthatno narcs w er e avai l abl e, the cal l eras ked wh ether a “ bl ue bel l y, ” m eani ng a gener alpol i ce o ffi c er , was av a i l a b l e . L u c a s i d e n t i f i e d hi m se l fa s o ne , a nd th e ca l l err es po nde d tha t he ha d i nf o r m at i o n abo utthe tr anspor tat i on o fapproxi m ate l y 2 00 pound s o fm ar ij uana. W hen descr ibi ng the ti p at t ri al, Lucas te sti fi ed that the in for m ant had st ate d that “ tw o du des” would be dr i vi ngi n a “ tr i ck ed o ut ” a nd “ sh i ny c l ea n” b l ac kpi ckup tr uck. The tru c k w ou l d be t ra vel i ng so uth on Pul ask i Aven ue i n the vici nity o fI r vi ngPa r kRo ad dur i ngthe “ti m e fra m e o f 4 o r 5 o ’ cl ocki n the eve ni ng unti l 6 o’ cl ock orther eabo uts.” A t t ri al, Lucas co uld notr em em ber w hether the i nfo rm ant had to l d him the ra ce o r nati onal i ty ofthe tr uck’ s o ccupan ts, al though Lucas ha d t es ti fi ed i n a M ar ch2 00 5 depo si ti o n tha t th e i nfo rm ant had sa i d that the m en w er e Hispani c. Lucas t e s t i fi e d a tt r i a l tha tthe i nfo r man th a d t o l d h i m t hat the o ccupants’ ag es w er e “b etw een 2 5 a nd 30 , 25 o r 35 , som et h in g like th at,” th ou gh h e h ad te st ified in h is deposi ti on that “ [ the c al l er ] to l d m e 25 o r 30. ” N orber g, L u c as ’s p ar tn er , te s t ified attria l th at L u c as h ad to ld hi m thatther e would be two H i spani c m ales bet w een the a ge s of 25 and 30 i n the pickup tr uck, al though N orber g had pre vi ou sly te sti fi ed i n a deposi ti on that th er e would b e “o ne t o t wo” men. I n h i s depo si ti o n, N orberg stat ed that he d id n ot know the ca ll er’s gend er, buta t tr i alhe s ta te d tha t Luca s ha d t o l d hi m tha t th e cal l erwas m al e. N orber g a dm i tte d that he t es ti fi ed that th e c alle r w as m ale be c au se L u c as h ad to ld h im th is d et ail d u rin g t h e w ee k b efo re th e t ria l.4 N o. 11

- 2319 Aft err ec ei vi ngthe t i p, Luc as a tt en d ed rol l c al l a t th e p o l i c e s t a t i o n . L u c a s t o l d No rb e r g a b o u t th e t i p , b ut he co ul d no t r ec al l whether he h ad al so t o l d Li eu te na nt Josep h P orebski, th at even ing’s w atch com m an d er. P orebsk i st ate d i n a s i gned but undated affi davi t that L u c as h ad ap p ro a c h ed h im w ith th e a n on ym ou s t ip

— that “a bl ack shi ny cl ean tr ick l i ne pi ckup tr uck o cc upi ed b y t wo Hi spa ni c m al es woul d b e tr av el i ng southbo und o n Pula skinearI rv i ng Park R oad bet w een 4 p. m . and .

. . 6 p. m . [ and] thi s pi ckup tr uck wil l be t r a n s p o r t i n gh u n d r e d s [ o f ] p o u n d s o fma r ij ua n a . ” At tr ial, P or eb sk i te s t ified th at h e re m em b er ed be in g t old th at “t h er e w ou l d b e a larg e m ov em en t o f m ar ij u an a . . . i n a t r uck, ” as wel l a s o th er de ta i l s th athe c o ul d no l o ng err emember

. He r emem bered thi nk i ngtha t th e ti p was “ f ai r l y g o o d” an d wor thf o l l o wi ngup o n. A fterr ol l cal l, L u c as and N orber g b ega n thei r patro l an d set up a m oving su rv eil lance

. Lu cas an d N orberg st o pped a truck m at ch i ngthe t i p’ s des cr i pti o n a r o und 5: 30 p. m . Acco r di ngt o Norbe r g ’ s tria l t es ti m o ny, the pickup m ad e an “e vasi ve m ove fro m the l eft l ane t o th e c u rb l a n e a n d als o [d id ] n ot u s[e ] h is t u rn sign als .” Luca s si m i l ar l y t es ti fi ed th atthe pi ckup “ dar t[ ed] t o the f ar r i g h t l a n e q u i c k l y . ” No rb e r g t e s t i fi e d th athe sto pp ed the tr uck par ti ally b ecause o fthi s t ra ffi c o ff ense a nd p a r t i a l l y b e c a us e i tma t c he d the i nf o r man t ’ s de s c r i pt i o n. Lu c a s a g r e e d tha tthe ma ne uv e r c o ns t i t ut e d a tr a f fi c o f f e n s e b u t b e l i e v e d th a t th e y h a d s t o p ped th e tr ucks o l el y b ec au se i t m at ch ed th e des cr i pti o n. N o rbe r ga ppr o ac he d the dr i ve r ’ s si de o fthe t r uck, a nd L u c as ap p ro ac h ed t h e p as se n ge r’s sid e. N orb er g t oldN o. 11

- 2319 5 M anuel Gal van, wh o had been dri vi ng, thath e had been sto pp ed f ora tr affi c vi ol ati on. N orber g t esti fi ed att r i altha t he s m el l ed bur ntmar ij ua na thr o ug h the open window , tho ugh he di d not m enti on thi s o b servati on i n hi s e ar l i erdeposi ti on o r i n the case r epor t. Lu cas tes ti fi ed that he saw a sm al l bagthatl oo ked l i ke a ba g o fma r ij ua na fl y thr o ugh the a i r fr om the dr i v e r ’ s s i de to the pa ss en g er ’ s si de, l an di ngo n the flooro fthe pickup . N orbe rgte sti fi ed that he sa w Gal van thro w tw o bags over to th e pa ssen ger’s si d e. B oth officers te st ified th at th ey th e n sa w th e p as se n ge r, lat er id en tifi ed as J uan Lu na, ki ck tw o bags a ga inst the passenge r’ s si de door

. The case re port, how eve r, sta ted that Ga l v a n t h r e w t h e b a g s t o th e fl o o r a n d th en Luna kicked the ba gs over to the driver’s side. Both of ficers ass er ted th at t h e r epor t’ s s tat em ent was i ncor re ct a s t o the di re cti on o fLun a’s k ick. A t t ri al, Gal van deni ed thro w i ng the drugs, but he did not deny that th e b ags we r e i n th e t r u c ko r th a tth e y b e l o n g e d t o h i m. T he o f fi ce r s r emov ed bo thmen fr o m the t r ucka nd se a r c he d i t
. Lu c a s t e s t i fi e d tha t the y s e a r c he d the tr uck because theypl anned to tow it ( pu rs uant to a pol i ce pr ov i si on r equi ri ng the to w i ng o fa vehi cl e be l i eve d to conta i n m ar ij uana) , and pol i ce pr oce du re r equi re s a sea rch pri or to towing
. N orber g tes ti fi ed to th is reason an d a d d ed th ey als o s ea rc h ed th e p ick u p be c au se it ma t c h e d th e t i p ’ s d e s c r i p t i o n . T h e of f i c e r s f o u n d t wo bal es ofpl ant m ate ri alwrapp ed i n pla sti c in t he tr uck be d. Be ca us e o ne o fthe b ag s was r i pped o pen, the offi cer s co uld s ee th e m ate ri al

. Lucas to l d N orber g, “Ithi nkthi s i s r ee f er . ” Luca s al so b ur ne d a nd s m el l ed th e6 N o. 11

- 2319

m aterial, l ead ing him to c o n clud e tha t the bales w ere cannabi s ( as the t i p had p re dict ed). Luna and G alv an i nsi ste d that the bal es w er e hayfro m a re cent nati vi ty pla y a t S t. W encesl aus Church. The o fficers never thel ess ar rest ed G al van and Luna fo r bei ng i n posse ssi on ofm ar ij uana i n the am ount o fapproxi m ate l y $ 661, 000. The o fficer s br ought the v ehi cl e a nd the suspecte d c an n ab is t o t h e p olic e s ta tio n . L u c as bu rn ed a sa m p le f r o m o ne o fthe b al es f o r Li eu te na ntPor eb sk i a nd Se rg eant Law re nce Casey. A t tr i al, Casey tes ti fi ed that h e di d not r em em berwh etherthe bal es l oo ked like m ar ij u an a, alt h ou gh h e h ad s ta te d in h is 20 05 d ep os iti on that “ i fIhad to gues s, Iwould say

. . . it lo oke d m or e like h ay th an a b ale of m ar iju a n a .” C as ey co u ld not re m em berwh etherthe burnt sam ple sm el l ed l i ke h ay or m a r iju a n a. P or eb sk i te st ified th at h e w as init ially u n s u r e th a tth e b a l e s w e r e m a r ij u a n a , b u th e b e c a me co nv i nc ed th atthe y wer e afte r c o ns ul tinga dr ug re f er ence boo k a nd sm el l i ng an unli t s am ple

. G a l v a n w a s c h a r g e d w i th p o s s e s s i o n o f1 0 0 , 0 0 0 g r a ms ofm ar ij uana. L ucas c om ple ted the cas e r epor t that e veni ng . The r epo r t r efer en ced th e an o ny m o us t i p, s ta ting th at “C alle r to ld th e [office r] th ata b lac k p ick u p tru c k . .

. woul d b e i n the v i ci ni tyo fI r vi ng a nd Pul as k i, a nd that i nsi de the tr uck w ou l d be a pp ro xi m ate l y 2 00 [poun ds] o fc an nabi s. ” At t r i al, Luc as c ha r ac te r i ze d the re portas “a sum m ar y, ” a dm i tti ng tha t i t di d not i nc l ud e o t he r de t a i l s ab o utthe t i p. S ev eng r ayb i ns c o nt ai ni ng the pl an t m at er i ala nd ba l i ngt wi ne f ou nd i n the t r uckb ed wer e se ntt o theN o. 11

- 2319 7

The l abor at or y a l s o de term i ne d t hatthe t wo s m al l bags 1 w ere ind ee d m arij uana and i nd ic ated this i n a re port dated J anuary 14, 2003. I l l i noi s S tat e Po l i ce Cr i m e Labo ra tor y. Testr esul ts r ev ea l ed th atthe se s ampl es wer e no t m ar ij ua na . The re sul ts w er e l ai d out i n a r epor t date d Ja nuary 2, 20 03, w hi ch w as al l ege dly f axed to the att entio n ofOffi cer N orber g o n J anuary 3. Lucas and N orber g hav e deni ed 1 eve r re cei vi ng thi s r epor t. Because Galv an co u l d not p ost bo nd a nd the o ffi ce r s wer e no t awar e o fthe n eg at ive la b r es u lts for t h e b ale s, G alv an rem ain ed in cus to dy. W hi l e p rep ar i ngf o r a pr el i m i na r y he ar i ng, the Offi ce ofthe St ate ’ s Attor ney r ecei ved the negat i ve tes t r es ul ts
. On J an ua r y 2 1, the Offi ce fil ed a w r i t to b r i ng Gal v a n f r o m j a i l a nd mo v e d t o di s mi s s the c r i mi nal ch ar g es . On J an ua r y 2 3, the mot i o n was g r ante d, a nd Galv an was re l eas ed f ro m custo dy.

B . P r o c e dur a l B a c kg r o und Galv an fi l ed a § 19 83 acti on a gai nst Offi cerN orber g, Offi cerLucas, Offi cerJ or ge Riv era, Cook County Sher i f fM ichaelS heahan, and the Cityo fChica go, al l egi ng federa l cl ai m s of fa l se ar re st and i m pri sonm ent, m al i ci ous pr ose cuti on, and fa i l ure to supervi se, di re ct, and disci pli ne; and sta te l aw c l ai m s o fm al i ci ous pr osec ut i o n, i nt en ti o na l i nfli ct i o n o fe m o ti o na l di st r es s, a nd i nd em ni ty. Gal van s ubsequentl y a gr eed to di sm i ss S he ah ana nd the Ci tyo fChi ca g o a s defen dan ts , a nd the di str i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d the cl ai m s a gai nst Riv era.8 N o. 11

- 2319 The case ag ai nst Norber g a nd L u c as w ent t o tr i al, wh i ch w as presi ded ove r by J ud ge Shadur. The j ury w as asked to co nsi der whether Offi cer s Norber g a nd Lucas sto pp ed the pickup tr uck witho ut r eas ona bl e s uspici on an d w h et h er t h ey arr es te d G alv an w ith ou t p ro b ab le cau se. A fter d e lib erating for l ess th an a da y, th e j ury re turned a ver dictf ordefendants N or b er g a nd Lucas as to both cl ai m s.

1. Th e Grant i ng ofa N ew Tr i al On A ugust 2 0, 20 09, G alv an m ove d fo r j ud gm ent a s a m att er of l aw and a l ter nati vel y f ora new tr i al

. Def endants w er e no t g i ven a n opportunit y to provi de a wri tte n re sponse to thi s m oti on. On Sep te m b er 2, 20 09, J ud ge Sh ad u r h eld a h ea rin g a n d ind ic a t ed th at h e w ou ld “pro babl y want to h ea r fro m ” defense counsel

. J ud ge S ha dur di d n ot ul ti m at el y g i ve e i th erpa r tythe opportunity t o re spond bef or e he denie d the m ot ion f or j ud gm ent a s a m at te r ofl aw and gr anted the m oti on f or a new tr i al

. H e f ocuse d on t h e i m peachm ent o fLucas, N orberg, and Porebs ki, a n d th e fact tha t the case rep ort d id n ot con tain m an y of th e d etails that th e officers l ate r tes ti fi ed to : I alm ost w ithou t exc ep tion rely on the abili ty of j urors to getthi ngs r i ght. Iam so rr y to say thatwh at Isa w and heard in thi s ca se re prese nted the m ost dist re ssi ng f al seho od s com i ng fro m the m ouths of so m e m e m b er s o f th e C h ica go P olic e D ep ar tm en t, a f or ce forwh i ch Ihave al w ays had re spect and I have al w ay s sought to cre dit, bec ause Ibel i eve so str ongl y i n l aw enf or cem ent.N o. 11

- 2319 9 A llen [sic ] L u c as ’ te st im o n y w as I b elie ve p at en tly f al se a nd i nde ed perj urious
. Hi s ac co unto fthe so- cal l ed “anonym ous t i p” w as nothi ng m or e a s I hear d i t than a t ota l ar re st f abr i cati on. A nd the re st of hi s s tor y s pri ng bo ar ded [ f ro m ] thatbas i c l i e. J us t as di st r es singIwi l l s ay, was a l so the c l o sing ofr anks by othe r m em ber s o fthe Ch i cago Pol i ce D ep ar tm ent in an e ff or t t o buttr ess thatf abr i cati on on hi s par t.

. . . J ust l oo k at the Lu cas sto ry . I fi t’ s t o be b el i eve d th er e wa s so m eo ne o utthe r e f ami l i arwi thg an g l i ngo and f am i l i ar w i th drugs f ro m the w ay th at he sp oke, [and ] he knew that a picku p truc k of a parti cul ar l y di sti ncti ve ap p ear ance

— th e sh i ny, c l ea n, tr ick ed u p o r t ric ke d ou t[,] sp ec ial p ain t, bla c k, all o fthe se particul ar s, was g o i ngt o b e dr i vi ngi n a spec i fi c di r e c t i o n no r th t o s o uth o n Pu l a s k i R oad i n that afternoo n, o ccupie d by t w o m al es, so m eti m es d es c rib ed as j u st tw o m ale s, so m et im es as H isp an ic m ales, de p en d ing on w he n L uc as testifi ed a t his[] depositi on o r du ri ng the tr i al

. A nd thattruck was going to be car ry i ng a l ar ge quanti ty ofm ar ij uana. L oo k w h at h ap p en ed: A m i ra cl e hap p en ed . A m ira c le hap p en ed

. . . . N ow w hy do Isa y a m i ra cl e? J ust e xa c t l y tha tk i nd o ft r uc kfi t t i ngtha tp a r ti cul a r i z e [ d] d es cri pti on t o a t ee . . . and occ up i ed by tw o m al es w as d riv in g dow n that ver y s tr eeti n that ver y di re cti o n dur i ngthe spe ci fi ed t i m e fr ame. A nd tha t se co nd tr u c k w as ca rry in g a lar g e q u a n tit y of h ay . M ira b ile10 N o. 11

- 2319 d ict u . Yo u kn ow , to sa y th at cr ed itin g s u c h a p at en tly bog u s aft er the f act hor ro r sto ryi s co ntra ryto the m ani f estweight o fthe evi dence is fra nkl y a m aj or und er sta tem ent. I t’ s sad to say that. Bu t L u cas I thi nk dem onst ra ted hi m sel fto have no re spect f or th e t ru th

. . . . A s fo r th e s to r y o fth e t w o b ag s o f u se r m ar ij u ana, i fthatst oo d al one i t m i ght b e s ai d that a f ac t- fi ndi ngb o dy, a j ur y , mightreas o nabl y b uy ei thersi de’s ar gum ent ab ou t cre dibi l i ty. But yo u see i td o e s n ’ ts t a n d a l o n e . I th a s t o b e l o o k e d a ti n l i g ht ofthe f ake descr i pti on that Lucas gave . A nd r egret
ta b ly th at w as . . . c ou p led w ith th e big, b i g lie abou t the p u r p orted j us tification for th e stop
. W he re of fi ce r s ar e so de m o ns tr ab l y unt r us two r th y o n the bi g pi cture , the st ro n g i nfe re nce i s that the two bag s ofm ar ij uan a w ou ld al so be a co verst or y, i fIcan m ake a bad p un “a p lant” to san iti ze th e officer’s gr oss l y i l l ega l, i nd eed unconsti tuti onalco nd uct. A t the en d of th e hea ring, Jud ge Sha d ur recu sed him self.

2. Th e Reinst at em ent oft he J ury ’ s Verdi ct Defe nd ants fi l ed a m oti on to re consi der w i th J ud ge H ar t, th e newlyas si gned j ud ge. The cas e was the n re ass i gned t o J ud g e Ch a ng, wh o s o l i c i t e d suppl e men t a l b r i e f s . On M ay 18, 20 11, Ju dge Chang gr anted defendants’ m oti on and rei nstat ed the j ury’ s v er dict

. J udg e Cha ngb eg anhi s an al y si s bya d dr es singthe pr o pr i ety o fhi s r ec o ns idera ti o n o fthe ne w tr i alde ci si o n. Jud ge Ch ang s tat ed that non- fi nal o rder s ca n be re vi sedN o. 11

- 2319 11

Jud g e C ha ng rejected d efend an ts’ b ro ad e r arg u m en t that a 2 j udge l ac ks the author i t y t o di s c re di t a witne s s ’ s t es t i m ony on a new tr ial m oti on unless the te st im ony is i nd is pu ta ble. J udge Ch a ng e x pl a i ne d tha tthe t r i a l j udg e c a nn otr e m ov e ev id en ce from c o n sid era tion un less no re aso na b le jury cou ld bel i eve i t, butthatth e tri al j udge re t ai ns the author i t y t o fi nd t es t i m ony notc re di bl e i n l i g ht ofthe m ani f es twei ghtofthe ev id en ce . at any t i m e be f or e the ent ryo fa fi nal j ud gm ent, tho ugh h e al so note d case l aw cauti oni ng j ud ges to r evi se d ec isi o ns o nl y i n e xt r ao r di na r y c i r cumst an ce s. J udg e Cha ng deter m i ned that the “ l aw o fthe c as e” doctr i ne o perat ed w i th l ess f or ce b ecause defendants had not been gi ven an opp ortu nity to resp ond to pla in tiff’ s m otion for a new tr i al

. J ud ge C h an g fur therco ncl ud ed that he had “a free r h an d ” t o re c on sid er, sin c e Ju d ge Sh ad u r “d id not r e l y o n fi r s t
- ha nd o b s e r v a t i o ns o fthe wi t ne s ses ’ d em ea n or , bod y la n gu ag e, or t on e o f vo ice .” Jud ge C ha ng agreed w it h d efend an ts th at th e j ury’s ver dict w as not aga i nst the m ani f est w ei ght of the t ri al evi dence. H e poi nted out that there w as no di re ct

2 ev i den ce c o nt r adi ct i ngLuc as ’ s te st i m o ny abo utthe det ai l s o fthe t i p or h is rec ei pt o fthe t i p. J udg e Cha ng d et er m in ed th a t J u d ge Sh ad u r’s ru lin g w as ba se d on h is “co m m on-sens e no ti on that the ti p w as too go od to be tr ue” r ather than on “ actualev i dence, l et al one a m a nifest weight o fe vi den ce , tha t r equi r ed th e j ur y t o r ej ec t th e te sti m ony tha t Luca s ha d r ec ei ve d the t i p. ” J udg e Cha ng i denti fi e d s pe c i fi c f a c t s i nd i c a t i ngtha tthe t i p wa s not too go od to be tr ue, nam el y that the ti p w as i naccurat e as to the o ccupants’ ages and that the i nfo rm ati on12 N o. 11

- 2319 coul d have be en pro vi ded by “[ a] ny per son f am i l i ar w ith L un a’s or G alvan ’s w ork sch ed ule an d w ith L u n a’s tr u c k.” Ju d ge C h an g a lso d et e rm in ed th at th e t es tim ony from Lu cas, N orberg, and Porebs ki p rovide d suffi ci ent e vi dence f or t he j ury to fi nd thatLucas had actual l y r ecei ved the ti p. J ud ge Ch ang poi nted out that the r efer ence to the t i p i n the case r epor t m ea n t that Lu cas w ould h ave had to sta rtl ayi ng the f oundati on f orthe cove r- up ev en be f or e the l ab r epor t i nd ica ted that the b al es w er e no t m ar ij uana. J ud ge C hang not ed ho w qui ck l y thi s f ab r i ca ti o n wo ul d ha ve ha d t o o cc ur an d the level ofcoop e r a t ion need ed from N orberg and Pore bski

. J ud ge Ch ang poi nted to ev i dence other th an th e t i p , i n c l u d i n gth e t r a ffi c o ff e n s e a n d th e t wo bags o fsuspect ed m ar ij uana, t h at co uld s up porta fi ndi ngo fpr o babl e ca us e. F i na l l y , J udg e Cha ng rej ec ted Gal van’ s a rg um ent that the ve rdi ct was ag ai nst th e m an ifes t w eig h t o f th e e vid en c e b ec au se t h e officer s’ tes tim on y w as co n flict in g a n d inconsi ste nt. J udg e Cha nge m pha si ze d tha t th e j ury he ar d the evi dence and m ade i ts cre dibi l i ty deter m i nati ons. G alvana ppea l s J udg e Cha ng ’ s r eins ta te m en t o fthe j ury’s verd ict and urges u s to rei ns tate Jud ge Sha d ur’s gr an t o f a n ew tria l.

I I . Discussi on A . Th e D eci si on t o ReconsiderPla i nti f f ’ s M ot i on f or a New Tr i al T h e g ra n t o f a n ew tria l (in c i v i l ca se s) is a n on -fin al, n on -ap p ea lab le or d er . Se eA l l i e d Che m . Corp. v. D ai f l on, Inc .,N o. 11

- 2319 13

A ltho u g h w e refer to th e m otio n b efore Jud g e C ha ng as a 3 m oti on to re consi der, th e m o tion is not a tr aditi onal Ru le 59( e) m o tio n to re co n sid er , w h ic h ca n o n ly fol lo w a “ju d g m en t.” J udge Sh adur ’ s gr antofa ne w tr i al ha d t he e f f ec tofvac at i ng the j udg m e nttha tn or m a l l y f ol l ows the j ur y’ s ve r di c t
. Rul e 5 4 ( b) g o v e r n s n o n - fi n a l o r d e r s a n d p e r m i t s r e v i s i o n a ta n y t i me pri or to the e nt ry ofj udgm en t, the re by be s t owin g s weepi ng authority up on the dis tr ic t c ourt t o rec onsi der a new t ri al m ot i on. 4 4 9 U
. S. 33, 34 (1980); La tino v. Ka iz er, 5 8 F
. 3 d 3 1 0 , 31 4 ( 7th Cir
. 1995 )
. Feder al Rule of Civi l Pro cedure 5 4(b) pr o vi des tha t no n-f in alo r der s “may b e r ev i se d a t an y tim e bef or e the entr y of a j ud gm ent adj ud i cati ng all the cl ai m s a nd al l the parti es’ r i ghts and l i abi l i ti es. ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 54(b); see a l s o M ar co niWi r e l e s s Te l
. Co. v. U nited Sta tes , 32 0 U.S. 1, 47 ( 1943 )
. Because the g ra nt o f a new tr i ali s an in te rlo cutor y o rderand thus s ubj ect to re v i s i o n b y the di s t r i c tc o ur t, the di s t r i c tc o ur thas th e d iscretionary auth ority to recon side r a new tri al or d er. Se eGal l i m or ev. M o. Pac. R. R. Co. , 63 5 F
. 2d 11 65, 11 70- 72 (5t hC ir. 19 81 ); see also P eterson v. Lin dn er, 7 65 F. 2d 698, 7 0 4 ( 7 t h Ci r . 1 9 8 5 ) ( s t a t i ng tha t a j ud g e ha s the power to recon sid e r an interlocu tory orde r at any tim e before fi nal j ud gm ent)
. H er e, J ud ge Ch ang di d n ot e rrby d ec id in g t o re c on sid er th e n ew tria l ord er . H e p ro p er ly 3 r el i ed o n the o r d er’s i nt er l o cut o r y s ta tu s as g i vi ng hi m the author i ty to re consi der a nd r evi se i t. J ud ge Ch ang al so sta ted that, under the “l aw o fthe case ” doctr i ne, j ud ges shoul d r efra i n f ro m re open in g i ssues d ecid ed i n earlier stage s o f t h e case ab sen t ext raord inary14 N o. 11

- 2319

Based on the i nter locut ory nature of an order granti ng a new 4 t ri al, s om e c our t s ha ve ru l ed tha t th e l aw ofthe c as e doc t ri ne h a s n o for ce at al l in th is c o n te xt
. See, e . g. , Lang ev ine v. Di st ri ct o f C o lu m b ia , 10 6 F .3 d 10 1 8 , 10 2 2 (D .C . C ir . 19 9 7 ); D ay v. A m ax, Inc ., 7 0 1 F .2d 1 2 5 8 , 1 2 6 3 (8 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). B u t seeU n i te d S tat es v . O ’K ee fe, 128 F. 3d 885, 891 ( 5th Cir

. 1997) ( appl yi ng the d o ct ri n e t o a g ra n t o f a n ew tr ia l). c irc u m st an c es . Se eChr i s t i ans on v. Co l tIndu s . O pe r at i ng C o rp . , 486 U
. S. 800, 817 (1988 ); U nite d States v . Harris , 53 1 F
. 3 d 5 0 7, 5 1 3 ( 7 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )
. We ha v e r ec o g ni z e d, how eve r, that the l aw of the case doctr i ne is d iscr eti o na r y a nd do e s n o tp r e c l ud e a di s t r i c tc o ur tfr o m r eop en in g a d ec id ed iss u e. SeeHarris , 531 F.3d at51 3; see also A viti a v. M et ro. Club of C hicago, Inc. , 49 F. 3d 1219 , 12 27 (7th C ir. 1995) (re fe r r ing to the d octrine as “n o m ore than a presum pti on, on e whose s tr ength var i es w i th the c i rcum sta nces”)
. W e never thel ess advi se j ud ges 4 that, bec ause l i ti gants have a ri ght t o expect co nsi ste ncy ev en if j u d ge s c h an g e , th e s ec on d j u d ge sh ou ld “abi de by the r ulings of the fi rs t j ud ge unle ss som e new devel opm ent, such a s a n ew appel l ate deci si on, co nvi nces hi m thathi s p re decesso r’ s r uling was i ncor re ct. ” F uj i s awa Phar m . Co. v. Kapoor, 115 F.3 d 1 3 3 2, 1339 ( 7th Cir. 1997); s e eal s o Br e nge t t cyv. Hor t on , 423 F.3d 674 , 680 (7th C ir. 2005 ) ( noti ng tha t the l aw o fthe cas e d oct ri ne i s l ess contr ol l i ng wh en the di sputed i ssue i s no t pr ese nted in “p recisely the sam e w ay” to th e later j ud ge). J udg e Cha ngc o rrectly de te r m i ne d tha t th e l aw o fthe ca se do ct r i ne a ppl i es wi thl es s force i n thi s ca se s i nc e th e pr i o r o r de r wa s inte rl o c ut o r y a nd s i nc e a “ ne w de v e l o p-N o. 11

- 2319 15

m en t” o cc ur r ed: de f en dan ts ha d no t bee n g i ve n the o ppo r tu ni tyt o r es po nd t o the i ni ti alne w tr i alr ul i ng and thus J ud ge Ch ang was co nfr onte d w ith t h e fi rs t ad ve rs ar ial p re se n ta tio n of th e n e w t ria l issu e. A d d iti onal l y, al though J ud ge Ch ang di d not pre si de ove r the t ri al, he was wellequi pp ed to r ec onsiderthe new tr i algr ant. J ud ge Ch ang a ptl y r eco gni zed thathe ha d a “ f re erhand” i n re consi deri ng t he r uling be cause J ud g e S ha du r “ di d notr e l y o n fi r s t
- h a n d o b s e r v a t i o ns ofthe w i tness es’ de m ea n or, bo dy l anguage , o r tone o f voi ce. ” J ud ge Shadur re lied on hi s co m m on- sense not i on ofthe case ( i
. e. , thatthe ti p w as too go od to be tr ue) , r at h er than on a ny i n-c ourto bser vati ons. Thus, J udg e Cha ng po ss es se d bo th th e au th o r i ty an d the abili ty to recon side r the n ew tri al or d er. B ecau se w e con clud e tha t J u d ge C ha ng prop erly ex erci se d hi s di sc r et i o n i n d ecid i ngt o r ec o ns i derthe g r an t ofthe new t rial, we now m ust co nsi der whether J udg e Cha nga ct ed wi th i n h i s di sc r et i o n i n r eins ta ting the j ury’ s v er dicti n f avo r ofdefendants.

B. The D eci si on t o Reinst at e t he J ury ’ s Verdi ct T h e r u l i n go n a mo t i o n f o ra n e w t r i a l i s a m a t t e r c o mm itt ed to th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d isc re tio n, s e eLa t i no , 58 F. 3d at 314, and w e r evi ew a d ist ric t court ’ s r uling o n a m ot ion for a n e w t r i a l for a b u se of d isc re tio n, se e D avis v. Wis. D ep’t o

f C o rrs. , 445 F .3 d 9 7 1 , 979 (7th C ir. 2006). O u r re vie w of a d ec isio n d en yin g a n ew tria l is “extr em el y defer enti al, ” a s o pp ose d to our “so m ew hat m o r e e x ac tin g” rev iew of a d ec isio n gra n tin g a n ew tria l.16 N o. 11

- 2319 See In re Inn o va tiv e C o nstr. Sy s. , 793 F.2d 875 , 888 (7 t h C ir. 19 8 6 )
. W e re vie w th e e vid en c e inth e ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le to th e v er d ict
. SeeLe w is v . C ity of Chicago Po li ceD ep’t, 59 0 F
. 3d 42 7, 4 44

- 45 (7 thCi r . 2 00 9)
. J udg e S ha dur g r an ted the ne w tr i alb as ed o n h i s co nc l us i o n tha t th e ve rd ict w as a g a i n st th e m an ifes t w eig h t o f th e e viden ce ; J udg e Cha ngthe n re co ns i der ed th i s r ul i nga nd reinstat ed the j ury’s verd ict. W e review J ud ge C ha ng ’s deci si on t o deter m i ne wh etherhe ab used hi s di scr eti on i n concl ud i ng tha t no n ew t ri alwas w ar ra nted beca use th e ve r di ctwas no t ac tu al l y a g ai ns t th e m an i f es t wei g ht ofthe evi dence. W e ha ve r ec o g ni ze d tha t “[ i f ] , a fte r e va l ua ting the evi den ce , the di st r i ctc o ur t i s o fthe o pi ni o n tha t th e ve rd ict is ag ain st th e m an ifes t w eig h t o f th e e vid en c e, a new tr i alis ap p ro pri ate
. ” M ej ia v. Co ok C nty
. , 65 0 F
. 3d 631, 63 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)
. A lthough “the dist ri ct c ourthas th e po wer t o g eta g en er als en se o fthe wei g ht o fthe ev i dence , a ss es singthe c r edibi l i tyo fthe wi tn es se s an d th e c om p a r a t ive st re n gt h of th e fa c ts p u t fo rt h attria l,” i d. at63 3, w e hav e cau tioned that “[t] he district cou rt’s pow erto gr ant a new tri alo n w ei ght grou n d s is not unl i m i te d: a c er ta in d efer en ce t o the j ur y ’ s co nc l us i o ns i s a pp ro pri ate , ” id. at 633 n. 1. The d ist ric t co urt al so ha s l e s s fr e e d o m t o o v e r t u r n a j u r y v e r d i c ti n c a s e s i nvol vi ng i ssues t h at ar e e asi l y unders too d by l aypeo ple

. Se eLa t i no , 58 F
. 3d at 31 4. W e r ec en tl y cl ar i fied the sta nd ard fo r a di str i ct c ourt ’ s a sse ssm ent o fa m oti on for a n ew tria l: I n conducti ng i ts own as ses sm ent o fthe evi dence prese nted, the dist ri ct c ourtcannotr em ove a pi eceN o. 11

- 2319 17

o fe vi den ce fr o m the c al cul us mer el y b ec au se the cour tb e l i e v e s i twa s n o tc r e dib l e a nd the n, wi th that pie ce e xcl ud ed, gr ant a m oti on fo r a new tr i al b e c a u se th e v er d ict is n ow ag ain st th e w eig h t. L a t i no v. Ka iz er, 58 F
. 3d 31 0, 31 5- 17 ( 7th Ci r . 19 95 )
. I n w ei g hi n gth e f a c t s , th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s b o u n d t o th e s a me evi dence the j ury consi dered, and c an st ri ke a pi ece ofev i dence fro m i ts w ei ghi ng p ro c ess onl y i f“r easo n ab l e per sons coul d not be l i eve ” i t be cause it “co ntra dicts i nd i sputabl e physi calf acts o r l aw s. ” Id. at 315. Put si m ply, if the evi dence w as adm i tte d bef or e the j ury, the dist ri ct cour t i s usual l y s tuck w i th i t i n rul i ng o n a m oti on f ora n ew tri al, f orbet ter orworse . M ej ia , 6 5 0 F
. 3 d a t6 3 3

- 3 4
. We ha v e s i mi l a r l y e xp r e s s ed that the party m ovi ng f or a new tr i al “m us t d em onst ra te that no r ati onalj ury coul d have r endered a ver dict a g a i n s t[ h i m]
. ” Ki ng v. Har r i ngt on , 44 7 F
. 3d 531, 53 4 (7t h C ir. 20 04 ); s e eals o L at i no , 58 F .3d at31 5 (“ [N ]ew tria ls gr anted be cause the v er dicti s a gai nst th e w eight of t h e e v i d e n c e a r e p r o per on l y wh e n th e r e c o r d s h o ws that the j ury’ s v er dictr esul ted i n a m isc ar ri age o f j usti ce o r w here the ver dict, o n the re cor d, cri es out to be overtu rned or sh ocks ou r cons cienc e.”)
. J ud ge Ch ang pr ovi ded a detai l ed expla nati on a s t o w hy the j ury’ s v er dictwas not aga i nst the m anifest w ei ght o fthe evi dence. H e e m phasi zed that“t h ere was no di r ec t ev i den ce ” co nt r adi ct i ngLuc as ’ s te st i m o ny about re cei vi ng a ti p or about the tip ’s d eta i l s. J ud ge Ch ang c ri ticiz ed J ud ge Shadur’ s o pini on f or18 N o. 11

- 2319 “r el [ yi ng] o n w hat i t v i ew ed as the c om m on-se nse noti on th at the ti p w as too go od to be tr ue. But ther e was no a ctualev i dence, l et al one a m anife st w ei ght o f ev i den ce , tha t r equi r ed th e j ur y t o r ej ec t th e te st i m o ny th atL u c a s h a d r e c e i v e d th e t i p . ” J u d g e C h a n gc o ncl ude d tha t th e co m bi na ti o n o fLuc as ’ s, Norbe r g ’ s, a nd Po r eb sk i ’ s te st i m o ny su ppl i ed su ffi ci en t ev i den ce f o r the j ury to fi nd thatLucas had actual l y r ecei ved t he ano nym ou s tip. Jud ge C ha ng a lso f ou nd the ca se rep ort t o s erve as ad d iti ona l evid en ce in su p p ort of th e verd ict. H e furth er point ed out th at ifth e tip w as an “after
- the- f act cover-u p, ” Lucas would have had to sta rtl ayi ng the gr oundw or k bef or e the l ab r epor ts cam e back nega tive and w ou ld h ave h ad ju s t tw o hou rs be twe enthe a r r es t an d the r epo r t to fabr i ca te the st ory. J ud ge Shadur’ s per cepti on o fthe anonym ous t ip i s unde r st an dab l e, g i ve n the c o nfl i ct i ng t es ti m o ny a nd th e l ac ko fde ta i l s i n the c as e r epo r t; ho wev er, the stan d ard f or gra nt ing a new tri al r eq uires th e j ury’s ver dictto be a ga inst the m ani f estweight o fthe evi dence. SeeM ej ia , 650 F.3d at 633

. W e agree w ith Jud ge C ha ng ’s as sess m en t th ats uffi ci en t ev i den ce was pr es en te d t o the j ury to supp or t i ts ver dict

. W e als o a gr ee w ith Ju d ge C h an g’s vie w th at th e t ip w as not necess ar i l y t oo go od to be tr ue. H e point ed to th e di sc r epa nc y abo utthe o cc upa nt s’ a g es a s i l l us tr at i ng that the t i p w as not perfect. J ud ge Ch an g st at ed that the j ury coul d have pl ausibl y c oncl ud ed that “t he ti pster i n f act w as som eone with s om e f am iliari ty w i th Gal van orLuna” orthat“there w as ind eed a ti psterwh o saw anothe r tr uck m atchi ng the sa m e deta i l s, an d that Ga l v a n wa s i n t he wr o ng pl a c e a tthe wr o ngt i me. ” Ac c o r d-N o. 11

- 2319 19 i ngt o J udg e Cha ng, a pe r so n f ami l iar w i ththe t r ucka nd w i th Luna orGal van’ s worksche du l e would have bee n abl e t o provi de al l of t h e i nfo rm ati on i n the ti p. The hay s a ti n th e t r u c kf o r f o u r d a y s , a l l o win ga mp l e t i me f or som eone to obs er ve i t, and a nyone w ho had se en the t ruck w oul d have be en abl e t o describe i t t o pol i ce. The t i p c o ul d ha ve b ee n pr o vided b y s o m eo ne who m i st o o kthe ha y for m ar ij ua na o r b y s o m eo ne who k ne w t ha t i t wa s h a y b utwa nt e d L un a o r Ga l v a n a r r e s t e d. T hu s, Jud ge C ha ng prop erly con clud ed tha t t h e j ury’s ver dictr est s o n pla usibl e theor i es of the ev i dence pres e nt e d. Ju d ge C h a n g a c kn ow led ge d th at p or tio n s o f th e t es tim ony w er e i nconsi ste nt or c on fl i cti ng, but he r eas oned th at“ [ t] he j ur y he ar d a l l o fthe co nfl i ct i ngand i nc o ns i st en t te st im on y, b a d m em or ies an d im p ea c h m en t a n d all, and t h en di d preci sel y what i t i s ca l l ed upon to do, w h ich is m ake a cre dibi l i ty deter m i nati on that was not m an i f es tl y o ut wei g he d b y o th ere vi den ce . ” J udg e Cha ng furtherexpl ai ned that the j ury c ou l d have a ttr ibuted th e in con si st en ci es t o “ th e pas sa g e o ft i m e an d the fad in g of m em or ies .” Ju d ge C h an g d id n o t a b u se h is d iscretion b y d eferri ng to the j ury’s cred ibi li ty d eterm i na ti o ns . The j ur y w ei g he d the e vi den ce , i nc l udi ngthe con fl i c t i ngt e s t i mon y , a nd a r r i v e d a ta v e r di c tthat i s su pp or ted by the evi dence

— oratl eas t a ve rdi ct that i s no t a gainst the m ani f estweight o fthe evi dence. Ou r tas k i s n ot t o deter m i ne wh etherOffi cerLucas f ab r i ca te d the a no ny m o us t i p b utr athe r t o de te r m i ne w h et h er Ju d ge C h an g a b u s e d h i s d i s c r e t ion in20 N o. 11

- 2319

By r e q u i r i n g a dh e r e n c e t o th e ma n i f e s twe i g h ts t a n da rd, we 5 en s ur e t hatthe di s t ri c tc our tgi ves the appropr i at e l eve l of d e f er en ce to th e ju ry ’s d et er m in a tio n s. S ee M ejia , 650 F. 3d at 633 n. 1.

5- 7- 12 concl ud i ng tha t the j ury’s v er dictwas not contr ar y t o t he ma ni f e s twe i ght ofthe e v i de nc e . I n thi s c a s e , r e g a r d- 5 less ofw he th er t h e d istri ct cou rt beli eved that the j ury ar riv ed atth e c or re c t o u tc om e , t h e re w as n o d ire c t e vid en c e c on tr ad ict in g L u c as ’s t es tim on y a b ou t t h e d et ails of t h e t ip or t h e f a c t th at h e re c eiv ed it. I t w as w ell with in t he pr o vi nc e o fthe j ur y t o de ci de whethe r the i nc o ns i st en ci es c al l ed i nt o que st ionthe e xi st en ce o fthe tip. Th e case rep ort, N orberg’s testim ony , and Po r e b ski’s test i m o ny a l l s uppo r t Luca s’ s te st i m o ny a nd the j ur y’s ve r di ct
. J udg e S ha dur ’ s th eo r y tha t L uc as f ab r i ca te d the tip an d ob t a i n ed th e c oo p er at ion of ot h er offic er s is pla usibl e, but the theor y that defendants pre sente d (a n d the j ury ac cep ted ) is al so p lausible. W e the refore hol d that J ud ge Ch ang di d n ot a buse hi s di scr eti on by concl ud i ng t h at the v er dictwas not aga i nst the m ani f est w ei ght o fthe evi dence and re i nstat i ng the j ury’ s v er dict

.

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, w e A FFIRM the d istri ct cou rt’s dec i si o n t o r e c o n s i d e r th e mo t i o n f o r a n e w t r i a l a nd re i nstat e the j ury’ s v er dict

.