Opinion ID: 755431
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of Dr. Shapiro's Expert Testimony

Text: 11 Initially, we turn to Jenkins' claim that it was error for the district judge to have granted the defendants' motion in limine to suppress Dr. Shapiro's testimony regarding his, Jenkins', ability to make a fist with his right hand. The intricacies of Jenkins' argument is something we need not rehash, however, as it is clear from the record that he has waived this evidentiary issue on appeal by having failed to accept the court's invitation to reconsider the in limine ruling at trial. 12 On March 23, 1995, Officers Keating and Murray jointly filed a motion in limine to bar Dr. Shapiro's testimony that Jenkins had injured his right hand before the incident in question, thereby making it physically impossible for him to have formed a fist with that hand and, in turn, to have struck Keating with it. The gist of the officers' argument was that Jenkins had previously litigated, albeit unsuccessfully, the issue of whether he was able to strike, punch, push or fight with Officer Keating at a Chicago Police Board disciplinary proceeding, and he was thus collaterally estopped from relitigating the matter in a subsequent trial. 2 More specifically, the officers contended that [t]he Board determined that the plaintiff did in fact strike, push, wrestle and fight with officer Keating. Accordingly, the Board ... rejected plaintiff's assertion that he could not so act and also rejected Dr. Shapiro's testimony to that effect.... [S]ince the Circuit Court [of Cook County] has now affirmed that decision he [Jenkins] should be barred from relitigating the issues here. On March 29, 1996, the district judge issued a written order granting the defendants' motion in limine to bar Dr. Shapiro's testimony at trial. In so doing, the court expressly and unequivocally left its decision open for reconsideration, inviting Jenkins to renew his opposition to the in limine ruling before the conclusion of trial if he could establish to the court's satisfaction the relevance of Dr. Shapiro's testimony as to the issue of excessiveness of force: 13 [A]n administrative adjudication agency subject to judicial review did find by a preponderance of the evidence that Johnny Jenkins was physically able to (and did) strike, push, wrestle and fight. So Johnny Jenkins is subject to estoppel on this issue if certain conditions are met. The issues are identical, the estopped party had a full hearing, resolution of the issue was essential to the prior decision, and the decision is final. All of these conditions are met here and the decision of the Police Board, after administrative review, forecloses any issue as to which Dr. Shapiro could testify. See Crot v. Byrne, 957 F.2d 394 (7th Cir.1992); Czajkowksi v. City of Chicago, 1993 WL 11896 (N.D.Ill.1993). Plaintiff may seek reconsideration of this ruling if he can show the relevance of the testimony to the narrow question of excessiveness of force. 14 (R. 58, at 2 (emphasis added)). Jenkins failed to request reconsideration of the motion during the trial, and he neither called Dr. Shapiro to testify nor made an offer of proof as to the testimony he intended to proffer. 15 It is, of course, the law of this Circuit that, in order to preserve for appeal the merits of a pre-trial ruling on a motion in limine, the party who unsuccessfully opposes the motion must accept the court's invitation to renew his or her challenge to it at trial. See United States v. Addo, 989 F.2d 238, 242 (7th Cir.1993) ([B]ecause defense counsel failed to accept the trial court's invitation to renew and reargue the motion ..., the challenge to the motion in limine is deemed waived.); United States v. Hoyos, 3 F.3d 232, 236 (7th Cir.1993) (Failure to accept the district court's invitation to renew his challenge to the motion in limine bars [the defendant's] challenge to the merits of the ruling on appeal.) (citing Addo). As we explained in Addo, [i]f a motion is not acted upon, a litigant better renew it. He may not lull the judge into thinking that it has been abandoned and then, after he has lost, pull a rabbit out of his pocket in the form of the forgotten motion. Addo, 989 F.2d at 241 (quoting United States v. Taglia, 922 F.2d 413, 416 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 927, 111 S.Ct. 2040, 114 L.Ed.2d 125 (1991)) (internal quotations omitted). Here, the ball was in Jenkins' court to renew his challenge to the court's motion in limine ruling and demonstrate how Dr. Shapiro's testimony might have been relevant on the excessiveness of force question. Because he failed to seek reconsideration of the motion, Jenkins likewise failed to return the volley. He cannot now pull a rabbit out of his pocket and claim reversible error on the court's in limine ruling to bar Dr. Shapiro's testimony. 16 Just as significant to our waiver analysis is the fact that Jenkins failed to call Dr. Shapiro to testify at trial or make an offer of proof as to the testimony he would proffer. In United States v. Plescia, 48 F.3d 1452, 1462 (7th Cir.1995), the defendant, Plescia, sought to introduce the expert testimony of a witness who would support his theory that surveillance tapes recorded by the government, and used against him at trial, had been tampered with. However, a pre-trial hearing on the matter revealed that Plescia's witness had no intention of testifying as to his belief about whether the tapes had been altered. Nevertheless, the court did not exclude the testimony. Rather, the district judge invited Plescia to bring the witness to the stand during trial so he could hear the questions and the government's objections before ruling on the tapes' admissibility. But the defendant never called his expert to testify. On appeal, we declined to consider the merits of Plescia's arguments regarding the admissibility of the surveillance tapes since [t]he defendants never called their expert to the stand, and thus they waived their claim that his [the expert's] testimony should have been permitted. Id. (citing Addo, 989 F.2d at 242). The only substantive difference between Plescia and the case sub judice is that the proffered expert testimony in Plescia was not excluded prior to trial, whereas the district court here made a pre-trial ruling to grant the defendants' motion in limine to bar Dr. Shapiro from testifying, expressly inviting Jenkins to seek reconsideration of the decision if he [could] show the relevance of the testimony to the narrow question of excessiveness of force. In United States v. Haddad, 10 F.3d 1252 (7th Cir.1993), we noted that [a] conditional ruling [on a motion in limine] by the district court is not preserved on appeal if the objecting party does not renew his or her objection at trial or seek reconsideration of that ruling. Id. at 1257 (citation omitted and emphasis added). It logically follows, then, that the party against whom the conditional in limine ruling is made must either seek a reconsideration of the ruling (if the condition is to seek reconsideration) or attempt to present the evidence, most likely through an offer of proof outside the presence of the jury, in order to preserve the issue for appeal. See Fusco v. General Motors Corp., 11 F.3d 259, 262 (1st Cir.1993) (Where a court rules in limine that certain evidence is excluded but the ruling is merely tentative or qualified, then the proponent might well have to offer evidence at trial in order to preserve an appeal on the issue.); Walden v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 126 F.3d 506, 519 (3d Cir.1997) ([W]here a district court makes a tentative in limine ruling excluding evidence, the exclusion of that evidence may only be challenged on appeal if the aggrieved party attempts to offer such evidence at trial.); United States v. Estes, 994 F.2d 147, 149 (5th Cir.1993) (criminal defendant must attempt to offer evidence that was excluded through Government's motion in limine to preserve issue for appeal); Christinson v. Big Stone County Co-op., 13 F.3d 1178, 1180-81 (8th Cir.1994) (explaining that when motion in limine is provisionally granted, party against whom motion is made must make offer of proof to preserve issue for appeal). Jenkins undertook neither of these two alternative courses of action--he failed to make an offer of proof as to Dr. Shapiro's testimony, nor did he accept the court's invitation to seek a reconsideration of its in limine ruling. As such, Jenkins has waived his argument that it was error for the court to have granted the defendants' motion in limine to suppress Dr. Shapiro's testimony regarding his ability to make a righthanded fist. In our view, the trial judge could not have related in simpler terms the fact that he was leaving open for reconsideration his decision regarding the motion in limine. If, for some reason, Jenkins had any doubts about the equivocal nature of that ruling, he should have inquired and sought a clarification of the court's order. 17