Opinion ID: 799364
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Reinstatement of the Jury's Verdict

Text: Defendants filed a motion to reconsider with Judge Hart, the newly assigned judge. The case was then reassigned to Judge Chang, who solicited supplemental briefs. On May 18, 2011, Judge Chang granted defendants' motion and reinstated the jury's verdict. Judge Chang began his analysis by addressing the propriety of his reconsideration of the new trial decision. Judge Chang stated that non-final orders can be revised at any time before the entry of a final judgment, though he also noted case law cautioning judges to revise decisions only in extraordinary circumstances. Judge Chang determined that the law of the case doctrine operated with less force because defendants had not been given an opportunity to respond to plaintiff's motion for a new trial. Judge Chang further concluded that he had a freer hand to reconsider, since Judge Shadur did not rely on first-hand observations of the witnesses' demeanor, body language, or tone of voice. Judge Chang agreed with defendants that the jury's verdict was not against the manifest weight of the trial evidence. [2] He pointed out that there was no direct evidence contradicting Lucas's testimony about the details of the tip or his receipt of the tip. Judge Chang determined that Judge Shadur's ruling was based on his common-sense notion that the tip was too good to be true rather than on actual evidence, let alone a manifest weight of evidence, that required the jury to reject the testimony that Lucas had received the tip. Judge Chang identified specific facts indicating that the tip was not too good to be true, namely that the tip was inaccurate as to the occupants' ages and that the information could have been provided by [a]ny person familiar with Luna's or Galvan's work schedule and with Luna's truck. Judge Chang also determined that the testimony from Lucas, Norberg, and Porebski provided sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Lucas had actually received the tip. Judge Chang pointed out that the reference to the tip in the case report meant that Lucas would have had to start laying the foundation for the cover-up even before the lab report indicated that the bales were not marijuana. Judge Chang noted how quickly this fabrication would have had to occur and the level of cooperation needed from Norberg and Porebski. Judge Chang pointed to evidence other than the tip, including the traffic offense and the two bags of suspected marijuana, that could support a finding of probable cause. Finally, Judge Chang rejected Galvan's argument that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the officers' testimony was conflicting and inconsistent. Judge Chang emphasized that the jury heard the evidence and made its credibility determinations. Galvan appeals Judge Chang's reinstatement of the jury's verdict and urges us to reinstate Judge Shadur's grant of a new trial.