## 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. 09

- 2805 P AT R I CI A C LARE TT, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. S T EV EN R OBERT S, et al., 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 . 07 C5625

—Jo hn F. G rady, Judg e.
A RGUED O CT OB ER 28, 2010

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 23, 2011

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Po lice offic er s w e n t t o P at ric ia Cl ar ett’ s h o m e i n La ns i ng, I l l i no i s, e ar l y o ne mor ni ng to questi on herso ns abo ut a b urgl ar y that had o ccurr ed ove rni ght in nearby Lynw oo d, I l l i noi s. A co nfr ont at ion en su ed and escalated qu ickly. On e of th e officers Taser ed Cla re tt thre e t i m es, and t h e offi cer s a rr est ed her for obstru ction an d resisti ng arrest. T hos e c h a r ges w ere su bseq ue nt ly d rop p ed , and Clarett su ed the offi cers2 N o. 09

- 2805 unde r 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 98 3 al l eg i ngus e o fe xc es si ve f o r ce and f al se a r r es t i n v i o l at i o n o fthe F o ur thAm en dm en t, a nd var i ous s tate-la w cl ai m s. A j ury re turned a ver dictf or the o ffi c e r s o n a l l c o un t s . Cl a r e t ta pp e a l e d. W e affi rm . Clar ett w ai ved her m ost pla usibl e claim of tr i alerr or

— the c ourt ’ s deci si on t o adm i t t w o ofher cr i m i na l c o nv i ct i o ns

— w hen she i ntro du ced evi dence of the c onvi cti ons hers el f, bef or e the o ffi cer s co uld do s o. He r r e ma i n i n ge v i d e n t i a r y c ha l l e n g e s a r e me r i t l e s s . We al so rej ect Clar ett ’ s cl aim s ofi nstr ucti onaler ro r. Final l y, the di str i ct c ourtpro perl y deni ed Cla re tt’ s m oti on fo r j ud gm ent as a m att ero fl aw as wellas herm oti on f or a ne w tr ial

. The pa r ti es t o l d dr amat i ca l l y di ff er en t sto ri es about the c onfron ta tio n i nsi de Cla re tt’ s ho m e, and the j ury w as enti tl ed to bel i eve the offi cer s’ vers ion ofev ents.

I . B a c kg r o und Earl y in the m or ni ng o n Octobe r 11, 20 05, o ffi cer s with the Lynw oo d Pol i ce Dep artm ent r ecei ved a re portthat a s uspici ous v ehi cl e was m aki ng unusual, r epeate d tr i ps to a nd fr o m a ga r ag e. Offi ce r s di spa tc he d t o the ne ighb o r ho o d s aw a v eh i cl e i n the a r ea matc hi ngthe ca l l er ’ s des cr i pti o n. The o ffi ce r s st o pped th e ve hi cl e an d i n i t f o und Cl ar et t, he r b o y f r i en d, a nd he r tw o s o ns Patr i ck and A nthony Pe ter s. The o ffi cer s a l so not i ced an ai r com p re ss ori n the vehi cl e; none ofthe occupants of th e ve hi cl e cl ai m ed to o wn th e co m pr es so r, so the offi cer s co nfi scat ed i t. S oo n ther eafter, Lynw oo d pol i ce r ec ei ve d a c al l r epo r tinga g ar ag e bur g l ar y . Am o ngtheN o. 09

- 2805 3 i tem s r epor ted st ol en was an ai r com press orwh ose m od elnum berm atched the o ne r eco ver ed f ro m Cl ar ett a n d h e r s o n s . L y nw o o d o ffi c e r s w e n tt o C l a r e t t ’ s h o me i n Lansi ng to tr y t o tal k with h er s ons, but they fi rs t c a l l e d the La ns i ngP o l i c e De pa r t men tf o r b a c k up . A t t ri alCl ar ettan d the offi cer s di sag re ed abo ut wh at occur re d w hen the offi cer s arriv ed atherhom e. Cl ar ett tes ti fi ed that w hen the offi cer s a ske d t o speak w i th her so ns , s he a sk ed th em to r emai n a t th e do o r whi l e sh e w oke them

. Despi te her re quest that they wai t o u tsi de, th e officers

— i nc ludi ngs ev er als he c l ai m ed wer e hi di ng o u to fh e r s i g ht

— enter ed her hom e i m m edi ate l y. W hen she a ske d them ag ai n to waito u tside, Lansi ng Of fi cer S te ve n Ro be r ts us ed hi s Taser to i m m o bi l i ze he r, c au sing i ntense pai n. Robe rt s was si x feetaway, and he use d the s e t t i ngo n the T a s e r tha tc a us e d b a rb s t o proj ect f ro m the devi ce a nd at ta c h to Cl ar ett
. Cl ar ettte sti fi ed th ato nc e sh e r eg aine d m us cl e co nt r o l, s he t r i ed to r un from Rob erts. T he Tas e r b a r bs w ere stil l atta ch ed to her, ho wev er, a nd Ro be r ts s ho ck ed h er a s ec o nd t i m e. The seco nd deplo ym ent c aused Cla re tt to fa l l i n the hal l w ay. C larett te stifi ed that Rob erts d ep loyed th e Ta ser a third ti m e, t o ta l l y wi th o utpr o vo ca ti o n. T he officers’ de s c r iption of the con frontation w as very d i ff e r e n t
. T h e y c l a i me d th a tth e y e n t e r e d C l a r e t t ’ s h o me on ly a ft er she con sen ted and that non e of th e officers w er e hi ding. They t est i fi ed that Clar ettal so gave them perm i ssi on t o enterherso ns’ bedr oo m . S eve ra l di d so, an d a di spute so o n a r o se . Cl ar et t r anpa sts o m e o fthe offi cer s who w er e s ti l l i n the livin g room and bl ock ed4 N o. 09

- 2805 thei r entr y into the b edro om . O ffi cerRobe rt s t est i fi ed th at he to l d C l ar etta num bero fti m es to m ove away f ro m the door, bu t sh e refused. Fe ar i ng f orthe safetyo f the o ffi cer s i n the sm al l bedroom , Robe rt s warned Clar ettth at he would deplo y the Tase r i fshe did not m o ve . W he n s he di d no t m o ve , he de pl o y ed th e Ta se r, a nd she fel l to the gr ou n d . T h e Tas erdel i ver ed an el ectr i cal curr ent f orfi ve seco nd s. R ob er ts sai d he w ai ted fi ve seco nd s, then tr i ed to as si st C lar ett i n get ti ng ba ck on her f eet, but she b ega n to k ick athi m . H e warned her seve ra l ti m es to sto p, and w hen she d id n ot , he deplo yed the Tas era seco nd ti m e. Because sh e co nti nued to r es i st, Ro be r ts de ci ded to a r r es t he r f o r o bs tr uct i o n. W he n h e at te m pte d to h an dcuffCl ar et t, ho wev er, s he sta rt ed to ye l l and fl ai l herar m s. W hen she w oul d not stop , Rob e r t s shoc ked Clarett a th ird tim e. T he officers w er e then succes sful i n pla ci ng Cl ar ettunder ar re st. Tho ug h the par ti es ra di ca l l y di sa g r ee d abo uti m po r ta nt det ai l s, theyag re ed that Rober ts deploy ed the Taser thre e t i m es. I t was al so und i sputed that Clar ettsuff er ed var i ous i nj uri es as a re sul t of the deploy m ents. A d oc tor w h o ex am in ed h er th e d ay aft er th e in c id en t n ot ed ele c tr ic al b u r n s fr om th e T as er ba rb s, as w ell as m u ltip le brui ses and spra i ns. S he w as presc ribed Val i um f orst re ssi nd uced anxie ty. Cl ar et t was c ha r g ed wi tho bs tr uct i ng a n o ffi ce r a nd re sis tin g a r r e s t, bu t t h os e c h ar ge s w er e e ve n tu ally dr o pped. Cl ar et t th enb r o ug htthi s ac ti o n a g ains t f o ur o ffi ce r s f r o m La ns i nga nd th ree f r o m Ly nwoo d a l l eg i ng cl ai m s f orexcessi ve f or ce a nd f al se ar re st i n vi ol ati on o fN o. 09

- 2805 5 the F ourth and Fourtee nth A m endm ents. S he al so br o ug hts ta te
- l aw c l ai m s f o r mal i ci o us pr o se cut i o n a nd f ai l ure to i nter vene. The cas e was tr i ed to a j ury, wh i ch re turned a ver dictf orthe defe nd ants on a l l co unts. Clar ettm ove d fo r j ud gm ent a s a m attero fl aw under R u le 5 0 ( a ) of th e F ed er al R u les of C ivil P ro c ed u re , or in the a l ter native fo r a new tr i alunder Rul e 5 9. The di str i ct c o ur tde ni e d the mo t i o ns , a nd Cl a r e t tt i mel y a pp e a l e d.

I I . Discussi on Cl ar ett’ s appe alfo cuses prim aril y on claim ed eviden tiary an d i ns tru ctiona l errors. She also argue s tha t the j ury’s ver dictwas aga i nst th e w eig ht o fthe evi dence and ask s us to r em and fo r entr y o fj ud gm en t in herf avo r as a m at te r of law , or alt er n at ive ly, a n ew tria l.

A . Ev i den t i ary Chal l enges Clar ettchal l enges three evi denti ar y r ulings m ade by the di st ric t cour t. Fi rs t, she chal l enges the cour t’ s pre tr i al dec i si o n t o a dm i t ev i d en ce o ft wo o fhe r c r i m i na l c o nvi ct i o ns , o ne f o r r et ai l th eft an d o ne f o r o bs tr uct i ng a pol ice o fficer

. S eco nd , she cl ai m s that the co urt er ro neousl y a l l owed Offi cerRobe rt s, a l ay w i tness , to o ff er expertte sti m ony. Final l y, she ar gues that the c ourter ro neousl y e xcl ud ed evi dence thatthe pol i ce d id n ot have a war r an t to en te r o r s ea r chhe r ho m e. W e r ev i ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s e vi denti ar y deci si ons f orabuse o fdi scr eti on a nd wil l r eve rs e “ onl y where no r eas onabl e per son6 N o. 09

- 2805

The judge ex c l uded Cl ar et t ’ s thi rd c onvi c t i on

— f or f orgery

— 1 be c a us e i twa s t oo o l d. coul d take the vi ew adopted by t h e t ri alco urt. ” U nited St at e s v. L. E. M ye rs Co. , 562 F.3d 845 , 855 (7th C ir. 2009).

1. Admissi on of

Cla ret t ’s Convi cti ons T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r te n t e r e d a r u l i n gi n l i mi n e tha tt wo ofCl ar et t’ s cr i m i na l c o nv i ct i o ns

— f orm i sdem eanor re tai l theft a nd o bstr ucti ng a police offi cer

— coul d be ad m itted at tri al. Th e j ud g e h e ld th at he r retail -theft 1 co nv i ct i o n was a dm i ss ibl e unde r Rul e 60 9( a)(2) o fthe Feder alRules of Evi dence as a cri m e i nvol vi ng an act o fdi sh o ne sty . The j udg e he l d tha t he r o bst r uct i o n c o nviction w as also ad m issible, th o u g h h e d id n ot sp ecify th e g ro u n d s. It ap p ea rs th at th e jud ge ad m itt ed th is convi cti on

— orper ha p s bo th

— f o r pur po se s o fi m pea ch

m ent since Cl ar etthad denie d i n her deposi ti on that she had e verbee n convi cted o fa cri m e. The s e r ul i ng s ma y h a v e b e e n pr o b l e mat i c . Admi ssi on ofa cri m i nal co nvi cti on under Rul e 6 09( a) ( 2) i s l i m i ted to cri m es f or w h ich “i t r eadi l y c an be deter m i ned that est abl i shi ng the el em ents of th e cr i m e r equi re d proo f o r a dm i ss i o n o fa n a cto fdi sh o ne sty o r f al se s ta te m en t by the witness. ” F ED . R. E V ID . 609(a)(2)
. Th e A d visory C om m it t e e N ot es ex p lain th at th is ru le is g en er ally l i m i ted to “perj ury orsubo rnat i on o fperj ury, f als e s tat em en t, cr im in al fra u d , em b ez zle m en t, or fa lse p re te n se s,” and si m i l arcr i m es. Reta i l theft l acks an e l em en t o fanN o. 09

- 2805 7

U nd er R u le 6 0 9 (a )(1) evid en ce of a co nv iction is ad m issible 2 f or i m pe a c hme ntpurpos e s i fthe c r i m e i s “ pu ni s habl e by d eath or im p rison m en t i n excess of on e y ear .” Cla rett’s retail the ft an d ob stru ction con v iction s w ere bo th m isd em ean or s; the defe nd a n ts d o not ar gue that they were adm is sible und er R u l e 6 0 9(a)( 1). A s w e ha v e alrea d y exp lain ed , to b e ad m issible f or i m pea c hm en tpur pos es unde r Rule 60 9( a) ( 2) , a c onvi c t i on m us ti nvol ve an ac tofdi s hon es t y or f al s e s t at em en tas pr oof ofane l em en tofthe off en s e; ne i t he r ofCl ar ett ’ s c onvi c t i ons qu alifies. act ofdi shones ty that i s co m m on t o cri m es ofthi s type. A s s u c h, “[t]h is c irc u it ge n er ally d oe s n ot co u n t re ta il theft a s a cr i m e o fdi shones ty” f orpurposes o f R u le 6 09 (a)( 2). K unz v. D eFe li ce, 5 38 F. 3d 667, 67 5 ( 7th C ir. 2008). The a u th o r i t y t o a d mi te v i d e n c e f o r i mpe a c h men t pu rpos es i s i m pli ci t in R u le 607 ofthe Feder alRule s o f E vid en c e. See 27 C HA RLES A LA N W RI GHT & V I CT OR J AM ES G OLD , F ED ERAL P RACT I CE AN D P RO CE D URE § 6096 , at 655 ( 2d ed. 20 07)
. To the exte n t th at the c ourtga ve a green l ight to the i nt rod uc tion o f e it h er of C larett’s convi cti ons to att ack her tr uthful ness, thei r adm i ssi on w as gov er ned b y R ule 60 8( b) , wh i ch pro vi des that sp ecifi c instan ces of cond uc t bearing on a w it n e s s’s cha ra c t e r f o r t r u th fu l n e s s “ o th e r th a n c o n v i c t i o n o fc r i me as p ro vid ed in ru le 6 09 , m ay n ot be p r o v e d b y e x tr in sic evi dence. ” F ED . R. E V ID . 60 8( b)

. N ei therco nvi cti on was ad m iss ible u n d er R u le 6 09
. S o t h e d efe n d an ts co u ld 2 no t m ake affi r m at i ve us e o fthi s ev i den ce o rpr o ve i t up b y w a y o f ex tr in sic ev id en c e. M or eo ve r, it is ge n er ally8 N o. 09

- 2805 i m pr o pert o r el y o n e xt r in si c ev i den ce t o i m pea cha w itn es s a b ou t a co llat er al m at te r. Yo un g v. Ja m es G r e en M gm t. , Inc. , 327 F .3 d 61 6, 62 7 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); U nited Sta tes v. B o nn er, 3 02 F
. 3d 77 6, 7 85 ( 7th Ci r . 2 002 ) ( “[ O] ne m ayno t co nt r adi ctf o r the s ak e o fc o nt r adi ct i o n; the evi dence m ust hav e a n i nd ependent purpose and an i nd ependent gr ound fo r adm i ssi on. ” ( quotati on m ar ks om itte d))

. “A m att eri s co l l ate ra l i fi t co uld nothave been i ntro du ced i nto evi dence f orany pu rpos e o ther than co ntra dict i on. ” U ni t ed St at e s v. Wi l l i am s on , 20 2 F.3d 974 , 979 (7th C ir. 2000) (qu otation m arks om itted ). The o nl y r emai ni nge vi den ti ar y o pti o n a va i l abl e to the offi cer s was i nquir y o n cr oss - exam i nati on. U nd er Rule 608(b) speci fi c i nstance s ofco nd uct be ar i ng upon tr u th fu ln ess “m ay . . . be i nquir ed i nto on cr oss - exam i nati on” i n the disc re tio n of the c ourt
. Per haps thi s i s what th e c ou rtand the offi cer s had i n m i nd

. A s thi ngs unf o l ded att r i al, ho wev er, and a ppar en tl y b as ed o n the cour t’ s pre tr i alr uling, the fi rs t m enti on o fthe convi cti ons cam e duri ng Cl ar ett ’ s ca se- i n -c hi ef, wh en her co uns elque st i o ne d he r abo utthe m on di r ec t ex ami na ti o n. By i ntro du ci ng the co nvi cti ons hers el f, Cl ar ettwaive d th e ri g htt o c ha l l en g e th ei r a dm i ss i o n o n a ppea l

. The S upr eme Co ur t ha s he l d tha t cr i m i na l de fendant s who i ntro du ce e vi dence ofthei r own pri orco nvict ions i n an eff o r t to r emov e th e “sting ” fo r g o the r i g htt o a ppea l the tr i alco urt’ s deci si on t o adm i t thos e co nvi cti ons i nto e v id en c e. O hler v . U nited Sta tes , 529 U
. S. 753, 758 (2000 ). The Court hel d that b y intro du ci ng the ev i dence fi rs t, the defendant adopts a co ncer te d t ria l st ra teg y t oN o. 09

- 2805 9

m i ni m i ze the pr ej ud i ci aleff ect ofthe evi d en c e an d i n so doi ng wa i v e s the r i g ht t o a pp e a l the c o ur t ’ s r ul i ngthat th e e vid en c e m ay be ad m i t t e d attria l. Id. ; see also U nited Sta tes v. Sa un ders , 359 F.3d 8 7 4, 877-78 (7th Cir. 2004 ). W e hav e nev er a d dress ed w hetherthe O hlerp rin c ip le appl i es i n c i vi l c as es . Cl ar et t ar gu es ag ains t appl y i ng O hler i n the ci vi l co nt ex t, noti ng tha t cr i m i nal defendants h av e t h e rig h t n ot to te st ify in t h eir d efe n se , w h ile c ivil p lain tiffs ge n er ally m u st d o s o in ord e r t o p ro ve th eir claim

. Th is distinction i s im m aterial in l ight of O hler ’s re aso ni ng. The Cou rt not ed that eve n aftera cri m i nal defe nd ant cho ose s t o tak e the st and, she “h as a further choi ce t o m ake

. . . . The defendant m u st c hoos e whether to i nt r o duce the c o nv i ct i o n o n di re cte xa m i na ti o n a nd re m ove the sti ng o r to tak e herchances with the pro sec utor ’ s pos sibl e e l i ci tat i on o fthe convi cti on o n cr oss exam i nati on. ” O hler, 529 U
. S. at 757- 58. The sam e cho i ce i s pre sent i n ci vi l cas es . Sim i l ar l y, i n the cri m i nal co nt ex t, the go ve r nm en t m us t al so make a t ac ti ca l de ci si o n: I fthe defe nd ant t est i fi es, [ the go vernm ent] m ust choos e whether orn ot to i m peach herby use ofher pri orco nvi cti on. H ere the t ri alj ud ge had i nd i cate d he w oul d a l l ow i ts use, but the Gover nm ent stil l had to cons id er w hetheri ts use m i ght b e deem ed re ver sibl e e rr oro n appeal

. Thi s cho i ce i s o ften b ase d on the Gover nm ent’s ap prai salo fthe apparent eff ect o fthe de f e nd a nt ’ s t e s t i mon y . I fs he h a s o f f er e d a pla usibl e, i nnocent expla nati on o fthe evi de n ce ag ain s t h e r, i t wi l l b e i n c l i n e d t o u s e th e p r i o rc o n-10 N o. 09

- 2805 viction; ifnot, i t m ay d ecid e not to risk p ossible reversalo n appeal fro m i ts use. Id. at7 58 (f oo tn o te o m i tt ed)

. The Co ur t no te d i n O hler th atwhenthe de f en dan t dec i des t o i ntrod uc e th e co nvi ct i o n e vi den ce he r se l f, s he deni es the g o ve r nm en t “i ts usual r i ght t o deci de, aftershe tes ti fi es, wh ethe r or not to use herpri orco nvi cti on a gai nst he r. ” Id. T he l ogic of O h l e r appli es w i th equalf or ce in both cri m i nal and c i vi l case s. The tact i cal nature of each p arty’s d ecisions is th e sam e; ind eed , the sta kes are high er i n a crim in a l c a se, an d stil l th e Sup rem e C ou rt f ound w ai ver . W e no te that eve ry c irc uitto have a ddr e s s e d t he qu e s t i o n ha s a pp l i e d O hler i n ci vi l cas es. See, e.g
. , Bow ot o v. Che vr on Corp
. , 62 1 F
. 3d 1116 , 11 30 (9t h C ir. 20 10 ); Est at eof Smit h v
. C i ty of

Wi l m i ngt on , 31 7 F. A p p ’x 23 7, 23 9 n .1 (3d C ir. 20 09 ); Canny v. D r . Peppe r/ S e ve n - Up Bo t t l i n g Grp. , In c. , 439 F. 3d 894, 90 4 ( 8th C ir. 20 06 ); Lud w ig v. N or f ol k S o. Ry. Co. , 50 F. A pp ’ x 743 , 75 1 ( 6th Ci r . 2 00 2)
. I n Cannythe Eighth Cir cui t o bser ved th at a ci vi l l i ti g an t sh o ul d no t be al l o wed to “avoid the conse quence ofi ts ow n tr i alta cti c byar gui ng i t was f o r ce d t o i nt r o duce the e vi den ce . . . t o di m inis h the prej ud i ce. ” 43 9 F.3d at 9 04. W e a gr ee. Because Clar ett i ntro du ced the evi dence of her re tai l theft an d o bstr uctio n c o n v i c tio n s h er se lf, sh e is p re c lu d ed from ch allen gin g t h eir ad m iss ibilit y on ap p ea l.

2. Adm i ssi on of

ExpertTesti m onyby LayWi tness Claret t next ar gues that the di str i ct c ourter re d by all ow ing O fficer Robe rts, a lay w itness , to offer exp ertN o. 09

- 2805 11 te st i m o ny . Ro be r ts was que st i o ne d about aninc o nsi ste ncy be tw een the num bero fti m es he Tase re d C larett and th e d igital r egister retained i n th e Ta ser’s i nter nal m em or y. The parti es agr eed thatRobe rt s Tase re d Cla r e t t thr e e t i mes a nd tha t e a c h s ho c k l a s t e d f o r f i ve secon d s. B ut the p rintou t from th e T aser’s d igi tal m em ory r e c o r d e d s i x s e p a r a t e d e p l o y me n t s o fth e T a s e r, s o me j ust o ne se cond apart

. W hen Cla re tt’ s co unsel as ked Rober ts about the di scr epancy, h e d i scl ai m ed tec hnica l k n o wl e d g e ab o u tth e m e c h a n i c s o fth e T a s e r o r th e c o mput erdo wnl o ad th atpr o duce d the pr i nt o ut
. At o ne poi nt duri ng thi s t est i m ony, the j ud ge i nstr ucted Cl ar et t’ s at to rney n o t to “ as kthi s wi tn es s a g r ea t m an y techni calq u es ti ons. H e doe s no t purpor t t o be a n expert, an d it w ou ld be u n fair to p u t w or d s in h is m ou th .” U nd er qu esti o n in g fr om his ow n cou ns el, how ever, Ro be r ts t es ti fi ed th atb as ed o n h i s ex per i en ce and tr ai ni ng, i t would be physi cal l y i m poss ible to disc harg e the Tas erm ult i ple ti m es j ust o ne se cond apart

. H e a l so tes ti fi ed m or e gen er al l y about the Tas erpri ntout, wh i ch r eg i st er ed 58 5 se par at e depl o y m en ts o cc ur r i ngo ve r the s p a n o fmo r e th a n a y e a r . He a l s o s a i d th a t“ [ a ] ft e r r e v i e wi ngthi s pr i nt o ut, the r e do es a ppea r t o b e m an y diff er ent m al functi ons in the pri ntout. ” Cl ar ettar gues that thi s was i m perm i ssibl e e xpert tes ti m on y b y a l ay w i tness , o ffer ed w i thout com pli ance with the re quir em ents ofRule 70 2. W e d isa g r ee . Ro be r ts di d no t g i ve t ec hni ca l t es ti m o ny about how the Taser ’ s i nt er n al m em or y o perat ed orhow data was uplo aded fr om the Taser t o the pol i ce depar t-12 N o. 09

- 2805

m ent’ s ce ntra l co m pu ter

— s u b j ec ts th at n o d ou b t w ou ld ha ve req uired som e form of p rop erly qu ali fi ed exp ert tes ti m ony und erRule 70 2. Rather, hi s t est i m ony w as li m ited to h is ow n ex p erience i n op erat in g t he Tas er. H e e xplai ned the s teps r equi re d to fi re the Tas er i n or der to illustr ate the i ncongr uity o fr api d, succes si ve deploy

m ents onl y o ne se cond apart

. N ei therthi s t est i m ony, n or h is d isc u ss ion of th e T as er p rin to u t, w a s c ou c h ed in te rm s o fa n e x p er t o p in ion
. See 29 C HA RLES A LA N W R I GH T & V IC TO R J AM ES G OLD , F EDERAL P RACT I CE AN D P RO CE D URE § 6253 , at 119- 20 ( 1997 ) ( “[ S] evera l courts have hel d that, i n case s i nvol vi ng o pinion s base d on var i ous typ es ofexte nsi ve experi ence i n a g i ven in d u st ry or on a sp ec ific s u b j ec t, t h e o p in ion s p ro p er ly cou ld h ave be en classified as eithe r l ay or exp ert.”)
. E ve n if th is t es tim on y c ro ss ed th e l i n e i n to th e d om ain of e x p er t o p in ion , i ts ad m iss ion w as h ar m les s. F ED . R. E V ID . 1 03 ( a) ( “Er r o r may not b e pr edi ca te d upo n a rul i ng wh i ch adm i ts ore x c l ud es evi dence unl ess a substan tial right of th e pa rty i s affecte d

. . . . ”); Liu v. P ri ce Wat e rhous eLL P , 30 2 F
. 3d 749, 75 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) (“[A ]n er r o r i s ha r m l es s i fi t di d no t co nt r ibut e to the ver dicti n a m eani ngful m anner. ”)
. The part i es agr eed that Rober ts deploy ed the Taser three ti m es f orfi ve se co nds ea ch ; ha d th er e be en a di spu te o n th i s su bj ec t, the ev i den ce o fthe Ta se r pr i nt o utdi sc r epa nc y might ha ve been m o r e i m po r ta nt
. As i t was , i n l i g hto fthe p ar tie s’ agr ee m en t, th is dis c re p an c y ha d litt l e s i gn ific an c e. Se eAguirre v. Tur ne rCons t r . Co. , 58 2 F
. 3d 808, 81 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. I nde ed, the j udg e m i g htha ve e xcl ud e d the e v i de nc e o f the Ta s e r pr i nt o ut o n g r o un ds ofN o. 09

- 2805 13 i rr el evancy ; o nce the i ssue w as rai sed, however, i t was not an abu se of d iscretion to p erm it R oberts to t e stify a b o uti tt o the l i mi t e d e xt e nttha th e di d.

3. Exclu si on of Evi den ce that the O f f i cers Did N ot H ave a Warrant Clar ett al so chal l enges the dist ri ct cour t’ s d eci si on to excl ud e e vi dence thatthe offi c er s did nothave a w arran t t o e n ter and search her hom e. T he officers m ove d bef or e t ri alto excl ud e thi s e vi dence as wellas an y t e s t im on y a b ou t w h et h er C lar et t c on se n te d to th eir entr y into her hom e. They a rg u ed thatwh ethertheyhad a warr ant o r conse nt was i rr el evantto the el em en ts of Cl ar et t’ s § 19 83 c l ai m s. The di st r i ctco ur t g r an te d the m oti on i n part, excl ud i ng al l r efer ences to the absence ofa w ar ra nt. The court hel d, how eve r, thatwh ether Clar ett conse nted w as potenti al l y proba ti ve of w hat happ ened once the offi cer s were i nsi de the house. T his w a s not an abu se of discretion. Th at th e officers did nothave a w ar ra nt w as ir re l evantto wh etherthey used exces si ve fo rce o r f al sel y a rr est ed Cla re tt f oro bstr ucti on a ftertheyen tered the house. S tat ed diff er entl y, the f act that they did nothave a w ar ra n t d oe s not m ake it a n y m or e o r l e s s lik ely th at th ey su b se q u en tly vi ol ate d her f edera l r igh ts by usi ng exce ssi ve f or ce o r f al sel y a rr est i ng herf oro bstr ucti on. Even if th er e was er ro r, i t was har m l ess . Despi te the c ou rt’ s pre tr i al r ul i ng, Cl a r e t tp utthe i s s ue b e f o r e the j ur y a ny wa y . On at least tw o occas ions, C larett testifi ed that the offi cers did nothave a w ar ra nt to ente r her hom e. A ccor dingl y,14 N o. 09

- 2805 sh e can ha rd lyc l ai m t o ha ve b ee n h ar m ed bythe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s pre tr i alr uling.

B . J uryI ns t r uc t i o ns Cl ar et t r ai se s th r ee c l ai m s o fins tru cti o na l e r r o r . S he conte nd s that the j ury i nstr ucti ons on e xcessi ve f or ce an d pr o babl e c au se wer e er r o ne o us , a nd a l so tha t th e d istri ct cou r t s h ou ld n ot hav e rej ecte d her requ est for a l i m i ti ng in st ructi on r ega rdi ng the j ury’ s use o fher p riorcon v ic tions. W e review de novo w he th er the j ury i n s t r u ct i o n s f a i r l y a n d a c c u r a t e l y s u mma r i z e d th e l a w. U nited Sta tes v. Q u i ntero , 618 F.3d 746 , 753 (7th C ir. 2010). W e r evi ew the dist ri ct cou rt ’ s deci si on wh etherto gi ve a par ti cul arj ur y i ns tr uct i o n f o r abus e o fdi sc r et i o n, U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tavarez , 6 2 6 F. 3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 20 10 ), an d w ill rev er se o n l y if th e in st ru c tio n s in thei r enti re ty so thor oughl y m i sl ed the j ury that they p rej u d ice d C lar et t. Q uin tero , 61 8 F
. 3d at 753.

1. Excessi ve-Force Instructi on The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s e xcessi ve- f or ce j ury i nstr u cti on w as base d on the S eve nth Cir cui t patt er n j ury i nstr uctio n an d w as ad ap te d t o c o n for m to th e e vid en c e in th e ca se . The co ur t ex pl aine d tha t ex ce ss i ve f o r ce “ m ea ns m ore for ce th an i s reaso n a b ly nec essary u nd er the circum sta nces shown by the evi dence, ” an d instructe d th e j ur y tha t “i f[ Cl ar et t] di d i n f ac t i nt er f er e wi ththe ar re st ofherso ns, the n the defe nd ant Rob er ts al so had the r i ght t o use the degr ee offorc e nec ess ar y t o ar re stN o. 09

- 2805 15

The pat t er n jur y i ns t ru c t i on l ea ves the ha rm e l em en tof 3 t he e xc es s i ve- f or c e c l ai m t o the di s c re t i on ofthe t ri al j udge (co n tin u ed ...) th e pl a i nt i ff f o r tha t i nt e r f e r e nc e a nd f o r the o ff e nse o f re s i s t i ng he r o wn a r r e s t
. ” Th e c o ur t a l s o e xp l a i ne d t hat t o r e c o v e r a g a i ns t R o b e r t s o n h e r e x c e s s i v e - f o r c e c l a i m, Clar etthad the burden ofpro vin g th at he used e xcessi ve f or ce, thatshe suf f er ed i nj ury orhar m , and th at hi s use of exces s iv e f orce w as th e prox im ate ca us e of he r i njury o r h a r m. Clar ettargues thatthi s a pp ro ach to the excess i vef or ce instr ucti on i m proper l y c onfl ate d her ex cess i vef o r ce c l ai m wi thhe r f al se - ar r es t cl ai m , makingthe f or m erco nti ngent on the l att er . N ot so. The di str i ct cour t s i m plyexpl ai ned that som e degre e offor ce m ay ha ve bee n ap p rop riate to arrest Clarett ifthe j ury f o und s he was a ctua l l y o bs tr uct i ngthe o ffi ce r s. The j ury’ s co nsi derat i on o fthe excess i ve- f or ce c l ai m was not i m proper l y l i nked to i ts deter m in at ion ofthe f al sear r e s t c l a i m. Pu t di ff e r e nt l y , the j ur y wa s f r e e t o con cl ude tha t Ro be r ts us ed ex ce ss i ve f o r ce i n s ubdu i ng and arr est i ng Cl ar ett e ve n i fi t f ound that the ar re st its elf w as lega l. Clar ettal so ar gues that th e excess i ve- f or ce instr ucti on im p rop erly requ ired h er t o p rove th at inj ury or ha rm occur re d as a r esul t o fthe excess i ve f or ce. S he ci tes B riggs v. M arshall, 9 3 F. 3d 35 5 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6) , f o r the propos i ti on that i nj ury need not be s how n in o rderto preva i l o n a c l aim o fexce ssi ve f or ce. But thi s was nota 316 N o. 09

- 2805

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 b ec a u se th e la w o n th is p o in t is n o t se tt le d

. S ee7 TH C IR . P AT TE RN C I VIL J UR Y I NS TR UC TI ON 7 .08
. Briggs s ays on l y thatthe re i s no per s e ru le p rev enti ng a party f rom s eeking nom inal dam ages in an ex ce ssi v e-fo rc e c la im w ith o u t a p ro v a b le inju ry . Briggs v . M a rs h a ll, 93 F .3d 3 5 5 , 3 5 9 -6 0 (7t h C ir . 19 9 6 ); se e al so Frizze l l v. Sz a bo , 64 7F .3d 69 8 , 70 1 -0 2 (7t h C ir . 20 1 1 ). “no i nj ury” exce ssi ve- f orce c ase . Ever yone ag re ed that Cl ar e t t s u s t a i n e d i nj u r i e s d u r i n g th e c o u r s e o f h e r c o nfro n ta tio n w i th R ob er ts . In th is s itu at ion , a n om in aldam age s i nstr ucti on

— perhaps a pp ro pri ate in a tr ue noi nj ury case

— w oul d have be en i napp ro pri ate her e.

2. Pr obabl e Cause On th e f al se - ar r es t cl ai m , th e co ur t g av e th e j ur y the foll owing i nstr ucti on o n the m eani ng o fpro babl e ca use: “Pro bable c au se exi sts i fthe f acts and ci rcum sta nces k no wn t o the o ffi c e r a r e s uffi c i e nt t o wa rr ant a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n i n b e l i e v i n gth a t th e s u s p e c th a d c o mmi t t e d o r wa s c o mm i t t i nga n o ff e ns e . ” Cl a r e t tp ro posed that the cour t s ubsti tute “a re aso nabl e pol i ce o ffi cer ” f or “a re aso nabl e perso n ” and now cl ai m s i t was er ro r f or the j ud ge to decl i ne to do s o. F or supportshe ci tes Lla gu no v. M ing ey, 763 F.2d 156 0 (7th C ir . 1 985) (en ban c), but thatcas e i s s i l ent on t h is parti cul arcl ai m o fi nstr ucti o na l e r r o r . The i ss ue i n Ll agun o was whethe r the pr o babl e- ca us e i ns tr uct i o n e l uc i dat ed o r c o nfus ed th e iss u es bef or e the j ury base d on the speci fi c f acts o f th at ca se . Id. at15 69.N o. 09

- 2805 17 H er e, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s probabl e- cause i nstr ucti on was ad apted fro m the patter n i nstr ucti on, wh i ch defi nes “pr o babl e ca us e” i n t er m s o fwhata “ pr ude ntpe r so n” w ould h av e bel i eve d at the ti m e a n ar re st w as m ade. 7 T H C IR . P AT T ERN C IVI L J URY I NS T RUCT I ON 7. 06. A l though som e a uthor i ty u ses the m or e s peci fi c “o bj ecti vel y r easo n ab le p olic e o ffice r” st an d ar d , s e e O rnela s v. U nited Sta tes , 51 7 U.S
. 69 0, 69 6 ( 1996 ) , pro babl e ca u se is m ost o fte n a ss es se d b y r efer en ce t o the “ pr uden t per so n” s t a nd a r d, s e e, e . g. , H unt e rv. Bryant, 502 U
. S. 224, 228 ( 1991 ) (p er c u r iam ); see also Willia m s v. R o drig uez , 50 9 F
. 3d 392, 398 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( “Pol i ce o ffi cer s pos ses s prob ab le c au se to arr es t w h en th e fa c ts an d circ u m st an c es w ith in th eir k n ow led ge an d of w h ich th ey h av e re as on ab ly tr ustw or th y info rm ati on a re suffi ci ent t o w ar ra nt a pr ude ntpe rs on i n b e l i e v i n gth a tth e s u s p e c th a d c o mm i tte d an off ense. ” ( em phasi s a d d ed ) ( quotati on m ar ks om i tte d))

. Clar ett does not expla i n how her p roposed al ter nati ve i nstr ucti on would have m ad e any di ff er ence here

. The co urt’ s probabl e- cause i nstr uction w as not im p rop er.

3. Li m i ti ng Instructi on Finally, Clarett ch all en ges t he district cou rt’s f ail ure to provi de a l i m i ti ng i nstr ucti on r ega rdi ng the j ury’ s use o fthe e vi den ce o fher cri m i na l c o nv i ct i o ns . S he pr es er ve d thi s i ss ue i n the di st r i ctc o ur t bys ubmi tt i ng propos ed l i m i ti ng i nstr ucti ons; the re cor d does no t re fl ect w hy the co urt rej ecte d her propos al

. But on appeal Cl ar et t’s enti re ar gum ent o n thi s i ssue i s l i m i ted18 N o. 09

- 2805 to tw o sente nces i n her o pening bri ef : “Pl ain tiff off er ed a cur at i ve i ns tr uct i o n ( 15 3- 1 p. 3 9) ‘ y o u may n ot co nsi der thi s e vi dence f orany othe r pu rpos e’ wh i ch w as rej ecte d

. ( T r. 873) Th ese errors prejud ice d Plaintiff and w er e n ot h ar m l ess er ro r. ” S he nei therci ted l ega l au th or ity n or m ad e a n y m ea n in gfu l arg u m en t in su p p ort of th is cl aim of error. W e hav e r epeate dly hel d that undevel oped ar gum ents ar e c on sid er e d w aiv ed

. See G ross v . To w n o f C icero , 61 9 F.3 d 69 7, 70 4-0 5 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); U nited Sta tes v. To ck es , 53 0 F
. 3d 62 8, 63 3 ( 7th Ci r . 20 08 ) ( “Uns upported and u n d ev elo p ed arg u m en ts
. . . a re co n sid er ed w aiv ed .”); AP S Sports Co ll ec ti bles, Inc. v . Sp orts Tim e, Inc. , 29 9 F
. 3d 624, 63 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( “[ I ] t i s no t thi s co urt’ s r esponsibi l i ty to r es ea r cha nd c o ns tr uctthe parties’ a r g um en ts , a nd concl usor y a nal ysi s wil l be const rued as w aiv er. ” ( quotation m ar k s o m i tt ed) )
. W e se e no r ea so n n o t to fi nd w ai verher e.
C. Ru l e 5 0 a nd Rul e 5 9 Mot i o ns Fi nally, Cl ar ettco ntends thatthe und i sputed evi dence th atRo be r ts de pl o y ed th e Ta se r thr ee t i m es c o nst i tu te s “o ve r whel m i nge vi den ce ” o fe xc es si ve f o r ce and re quir ed the dist ri ct c ourtto ente r j ud gm ent in her f avo r as a m att ero fl aw under Rul e 5 0 o r at le ast gr ant a new tr i alu n d er Rule 59
. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni al o fCl a r e t t ’ s mo t i o n f o r j ud gm e nta s a ma t t e r o fl a w de no vo , r ev i ewi ngthe r ec o r d a s a whol e to “ dete r m i ne w hetherthe ev id ence prese nted, co m bi ned w i th al l r easo n ab le in fer en c es p er m iss ibly d ra w n th er efr om , i s s u ffi-N o. 09

- 2805 19 ci en t to s uppo r t th e verdi ctwhenv i ewe d i n the l i g ht m os t f avo rabl e t o the par ty aga i nst whom the m oti on i s di re cted. ” E rick son v. Wis. D ep’t o f C o rr., 469 F. 3d 600, 60 1 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ) (qu ot at ion m ar ks o m i t t ed ). W e w ill ove r t ur n the j ur y ’ s v e r di c to nl y i fn o r e a s o nab l e j uror c ou ld h av e f o u n d in t h e d efe n d an ts ’ fav or . Id. ; see also D a vis v. Wis. D ep’t o

f C o rr. , 445 F.3d 974, 975 (7th Cir. 2006). O n the o th erha nd, we r ev i ew the de ni alo fCl arett’s m ot ion for a ne w tr ial for ab u se o fd isc re tio n . Id. at 979. “A ne w trial m ay be g r an te d i fthe v er di cti s ag ains t th e clea r w ei ght o fthe evi dence orthe tr i alwas unfai r to th e m ovi ng par ty. ” D a vid v. C a terpilla r, Inc ., 3 2 4 F
. 3 d 8 51, 863 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)
. On re vi ew , however, “[a ] new tri al shoul d be g ra nted ‘onl y when the r eco rd sho w s that the j u ry’ s v er dictr esul ted i n a m i scar ri age o fj usti ce o r w he re the ve rd ict, on th e record , cries out t o be overturn ed o r shock s o ur co nsci ence. ’ ” D avis , 445 F. 3d at 979 ( quoti ng Wi l l i am s on v . Cons ol
. Rai l Corp. , 926 F. 2d 1344 , 1353 ( 3d Cir. 1991)). Th e j ur y ’ s v e r di c t fi nd s a mpl e s up po r t i n the r e c o r d. Clar ett ’ s t el l i ng o fev ents diff er ed shar plyfro m thato f th e offi cer s, and i t was ent i re l y the j ury’ s pro vi nce t o choos e w h i ch ver si on t o bel i eve . Robe rt s t est i fi ed at length regard ing his reason s fo r d ep loyi ng the T aser. H e t est i fi ed that Clar ettwas bl ock i ng the door w ay to he r s o ns ’ b edr o o m a fte r s o m e o ffi ce r s ha d a l r ea dy en te r ed. He h ea r d a c o m m o ti o n i n the b ed room a nd bel i eve d that the o ffi cer s m ay need hel p. H e t ol d Cl ar ett t o mo v e a wa y fr o m th e d o o r wa y a n d s h e r e fu s e d

. He used t h e Taser to tem pora ri l y i m m obi l i ze and rem ove20 N o. 09

- 2805 he r fr o m the do o r way . He s ai d he c ons ide r ed us i ng oth er al te r na ti ve s, s ucha s phy si ca l l y movingCl ar et t o ut of t h e w ay , bu t b ec au se th e a p a r tm en t w as sm all and cro w ded , a physi calco nfr ontat i on m i ght e sc al ate quick l y, r i ski ng se ri ous inj ury. U nd erthe ci rc u m sta nces, he c o nc l ude d tha t us i ng th e Tas erwas hi s be sto pti o n. Ex p lai ni ngthe s ec o nd a nd thi r d Ta se r de pl o y m en ts , he sa i d tha t Cl ar et t was k i cking and fl ai l i nga t hi m a nd conti nued thi s a ssa ult i ve behavi orwh en h e t ri ed to ar re st her. The o thero ffi cer s t est i fi ed si m i l ar l y. The j uror s were en ti tl ed to bel i eve the offi cer s’ ve rs i on o f even ts, an d w e w il l not distu rb the ir cred ibi li ty d eterm in at ion
. O n t h is re c or d a re as on ab le jur or co u ld ea sily fi nd f o r the de f en dan ts ; the v er di ctdo es no t “c r y o ut to be overtu rned ” or “shoc k the cons cienc e.” Clarett’s Ru l e 5 0 a nd R ul e 5 9 mo t i o ns we r e p r o pe r l y de ni e d. A FFI RMED .

9- 23- 11