Opinion ID: 796343
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Thompson's Family Files Suit

Text: 11 Following Thompson's death, an autopsy was conducted. In a report issued on April 12, 2001, from the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy, a Dr. Lifschultz, concluded that James Thompson died as a result of asphyxia due to a choke hold, but also determined that Thompson was suffering from [h]ypertensive cardiovascular disease and opiate intoxication, which in turn were found to be contributory causes of his death. 12 On November 16, 2001, Thompson's wife, Paulette White-Thompson, and his mother, Lee Thompson, 8 filed suit against the City and eleven officers in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The original complaint was followed by two amended complaints 9 seeking damages arising from Thompson's death under both state and federal law. The second amended complaint alleged that the City and the officers, in both their individual and official capacities, had violated Thompson's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution when denying him equal protection and due process with the use of excessive force while taking him into custody. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, the complaint averred common law causes of action for wrongful death and civil conspiracy under Illinois state law. Following discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. 13 The trial judge granted the summary judgment motion in part and dismissed the plaintiffs' equal protection claims under § 1983 as well as the state common law and civil conspiracy claims as to all of the defendants. 10 Thompson v. City of Chicago, No. 01-C-8883, at -17, 2004 WL 1197436 (N.D.Ill. May 27, 2004). Further, the plaintiffs' wrongful death claims were dismissed as to all of the officers named except for Officer Hespe, who had allegedly applied the fatal choke hold. Id. at -13, 2004 WL 1197436. The plaintiffs later voluntarily dismissed the other ten on-scene officers from the suit, leaving only the City 11 and Officer Hespe as defendants. 14 Prior to trial, the remaining defendants filed a number motions in limine. One motion sought to exclude any reference in testimony, evidence or argument to the CPD's General Orders, policies and procedures. 12 The other sought to bar expert testimony that the plaintiffs intended to introduce through a CPD Office of Professional Standards inspector and a CPD sergeant who investigated the allegations of excessive force during Thompson's arrest. The plaintiffs intended to ask these experts whether Officer Hespe: (a) used excessive force; or (b) violated any CPD General Orders, policies or procedures when arresting Thompson. The City and Officer Hespe argued that the probative value of such evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and that it would not aid the jury in reaching a decision but would cause confusion. The district court agreed and granted the motions in limine under Rules 401 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.