Court Opinion

ID: 9491695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:21:02.102169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:53.709279
License: Public Domain

HARLINGTON WOOD, JR., Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
This is not a very sympathetic case in which to dissent since it might appear to be in behalf of a “convicted cop killer.” If this were a matter of sympathy, I would not be dissenting. It is instead an objection to what I regard as an inflexible and unrealistic rule of trial practice being imposed on trial lawyers who may face similar difficult circumstances in the future. Another reason making this dissent difficult is that the majority has support for its view that an unsuccessful motion in limine is insufficient to preserve an issue for appeal even though in this circuit this general issue has been uncertain. My view was partially set out in Cook v. Hoppin, 783 F.2d 684, 691 n. 2 (7th Cir.1986), which held that once the court determined, on a motion in limine, that certain evidence was admissible, the party seeking its exclusion was free to treat this ruling as the law of the case and could go so far as to seek admission of the evidence himself without waiving his earlier objection to its admission. See also Favala v. Cumberland Engineering Co., 17 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir.1994); Allison v. Ticor Title Ins., 979 F.2d 1187, 1200 (7th Cir.1992); Gora v. Costa, 971 F.2d 1325, 1329 (7th Cir.1992); Harris v. Davis, 874 F.2d 461, 464 n. 5 (7th Cir.1989). Additionally, I do not believe any of the cases cited by the majority involve anything so prejudicial as the “cop killer” description. I view that description as totally unnecessary for impeachment purposes, the reason for which it was admitted. The fact that plaintiff had been convicted of murder should have been enough for impeachment purposes without going into the prejudicial details of the murder.1 The “cop *1097killer” evidence could only inflame the jury while adding nothing to the impeachment quality of the felony conviction.
For impeachment purposes, there is generally no error in allowing evidence that the witness is a convicted felon. However, under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, even relevant evidence may be excluded if the trial judge determines that its probative value is “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice....” Similarly, FRE 609 permits impeachment by evidence of the conviction of a crime, but again the court is cautioned to weigh the evidence against its prejudicial effect. The problem arises where the nature of the crime is particularly offensive. I put “cop killer” evidence in that category. To describe the plaintiffs felony conviction to that extent unnecessarily risks substituting prejudice for legitimate impeachment.
This is a civil rights suit brought by the plaintiff inmate against a corrections officer in the institution where plaintiff was being held on his murder charge. Wilson alleged that the defendant attacked him without provocation. Even a “cop killer” is entitled to a fair trial, but he could not receive that when the trial court permitted more than the fact of conviction of murder to be used in describing plaintiffs conduct. The majority views the objection to the details of plaintiffs crime as having been waived by plaintiffs counsel’s failure to make an objection at the time the challenged evidence was offered at trial and because plaintiff was the one who first brought the evidence to the jury’s attention. In the circumstances of this case, however, I do not believe that this constitutes waiver. To regard it as a waiver when the trial judge had already ruled twice on plaintiffs objection encroaches on the legitimate tactical choices counsel should have available in those circumstances. That can be illustrated with an outline of what happened in this case.
The day after plaintiffs written motion in limine was denied, June 3, 1997, the trial began with jury selection. The following day, jury selection was completed. Just pri- or to opening arguments on June 4, plaintiffs counsel renewed his motion to exclude the “cop killer” evidence already ruled on adversely by the trial judge just the day before trial began. It was again denied. Wilson’s counsel then stated to the court that as a result of the court’s continued adverse evi-dentiary ruling, “I’m going to need to address that issue in my opening.” As I see it, counsel had no good choice except to mention it first to the jury in an effort to minimize the adverse impact of the “cop killer” evidence when it was admitted. Otherwise, the jury might reasonably think that that very adverse evidence was something plaintiffs counsel had been intending to hide. Plaintiffs counsel consequently raised the subject in his opening as he had advised the trial judge he would have to do, stating, “[Y]ou will hear evidence that [Wilson] was convicted of killing a Chicago police officer.” That is a generally accepted trial tactic when plaintiff knows there is unavoidable adverse evidence ahead and is certainly not “overboard” or excessive for the purpose. In contrast, defendant’s counsel exploited the revelation at the very beginning of his opening argument by stating:
With all due respect to [opposing counsel], I believe he left a few things out. I’d like to reintroduce the litigant, Jackie Wilson, cop-killer, murdered a Chicago officer who was on duty, Officer O’Brien. He also robbed Officer O’Brien. He was convicted of that. He also robbed Officer O’Brien’s partner, Officer Fahey. He was also convicted of that. And, yes, that is the crime he was waiting trial on back in 1988 in the Cook County Jail....
Wilson was the first witness to testify and was called immediately following opening arguments. On direct examination by his counsel, Wilson testified to his prior conviction, giving the date, title of the offense, and disposition. He did not introduce the identity evidence; this information was brought out by defense counsel on cross-examination. While the majority relies on United States v. DePriest, 6 F.3d 1201 (7th Cir.1993), for the proposition that “[a] defendant waives his right to appeal a trial court’s pretrial ruling *1098that a prior conviction can be used ... for purposes of impeachment when the defendant himself brought out the fact of the prior conviction in his direct testimony,” id. at 1209 (citing United States v. Williams, 939 F.2d 721, 723 (9th Cir.1991)), the present case is distinguishable from DePriest. While Wilson testified to the fact of his conviction on direct, the identity evidence was brought out only on cross-examination by defense counsel. On appeal, Wilson challenges only the admission of this additional detail, he does not challenge the admissibility of the evidence which he brought out on direct.
Then defendant’s counsel in his closing argument further exploited the “cop killer” information far beyond any legitimate impeachment needs as can be seen in the following portion of defense counsel’s closing argument. The effort was made to show similarities between Wilson’s murder conviction and the fracas for which he was suing the corrections officer:
But let’s start talking about the evidence in the case. We have a case, June 23, 1988. Mr. Wilson is in jail pending trial on a serious charge. He is charged with the murder of a police officer. My co-counsel ... brought that up. Called Mr. Wilson a cop killer. It is absolutely true. Mr. Wilson didn’t deny it. You know what, we didn’t bring that up to play to your passions, we brought that up to you for one simple reason, your right to know and your right to know who we’re dealing with, somebody here who has committed a violent act against a person in authority, a figure, a man in uniform, much like Officer Williams was in uniform on June 23rd, 1988. This man dislikes authority. He’ll commit violent acts given the chance any time.
That was not just an impeachment argument, but a blatant effort to make plaintiff out to be a bad man because of his prior conduct, that he would commit further violent crimes against those in authority whenever he got the chance. Therefore, it would follow that plaintiff should not prevail in his civil case against an officer. This prejudicial situation cannot be excused as merely harmless error. Even when a witness opens the door to slight amplification of his prior convictions, defense counsel is not allowed to “harp on the witness’s crime, parade it lovingly before the jury in all its gruesome details, and thereby shift the focus of attention from the events at issue to the witness’s conviction in a prior case.” Robinson, 8 F.3d at 410 (citing Campbell, 831 F.2d at 707). In the present case, not only did defense counsel elicit the impermissible evidence from Wilson on cross-examination, he argued it to the jury in both his opening and closing statements in a way designed to arouse emotion. Additionally, while plaintiffs counsel addressed the identity evidence several times in his closing argument, this was a reasonable attempt to mitigate the damaging evidence which at that point had already been introduced at trial by the defendant. On June 5, the trial concluded after the objectionable evidence had been admitted.
The majority claims a second waiver occurred when plaintiffs counsel again did not object when the prejudicial evidence was actually offered at trial. That would have been the third time plaintiffs counsel had objected in a period of a few days and the second objection within a few hours. During that short trial there was nothing new that developed that could have been seen in any way as possibly changing the judge’s mind. Nor would the judge’s memory have to be very long to remember plaintiffs renewed motion in limine on which he had again affirmed his denial just a few hours before.2
York and the other cases cited by the majority hold that the ruling on the motion in limine alone is not sufficient on appeal to preserve the objection and that the same objection must be raised again during trial when the evidence is to be admitted. In this case, the second objection was raised during trial, just before opening statements. Wilson’s testimony immediately followed opening statements. Had counsel again interrupted the trial to make the same objection a third time, the judge would have been justified in asking plaintiffs counsel how many times he was going to have to deny plaintiffs motion before plaintiff got the message. The need for plaintiff to renew the motion such a *1099short time after its being denied should be viewed as a superfluous requirement and the failure to do so should not constitute waiver. To find waiver in these circumstances, in my judgment, raises artificial barriers to a reasonable and accepted trial practice, creating a trap without good reason. I would follow the majority of cases in this circuit which hold that an unsuccessful motion in limine is sufficient to preserve an issue for appeal without the need for a contemporaneous objection, particularly when, as in this case, it all happened within a couple of days and nothing had happened that might be a basis for the judge to possibly change his ruling. See, e.g., Favala, 17 F.3d at 991 (citations omitted); Harris, 874 F.2d at 464 n. 5.
I see no waiver, only prejudice. The error in admitting the identity evidence cannot be considered harmless when viewing the trial as a whole. The plaintiff had an adequate jury issue and, given the similarity between the incidents and the inflammatory nature of the evidence, its admission may have had a substantial effect on the jury’s decision. It is not the fault of this court that the ease has not heretofore been fairly tried. It should go back again to give this convicted “cop killer” a fair trial on his civil rights violation claim.
I must, therefore, respectfully dissent.

. This circuit has consistently held that when a prior conviction is introduced for impeachment purposes under Federal Rule of Evidence 609, the only information that is properly admissible is tire date, the title of the offense, and the disposition. See, e.g., United States v. Fawley, 137 F.3d 458, 473-74 (7th Cir.1998) (citing United States v. Robinson, 8 F.3d 398, 409 (7th Cir.1993)); Gora, 971 F.2d at 1330; Campbell v. Greer, 831 F.2d 700, 707 (7th Cir.1987). It is *1097error to elicit any further information or to delve into the details of the prior conviction. While error of this type is subject to a harmlessness analysis, Fawley, 137 F.3d at 474, as discussed above, the error in the present case is extremely prejudicial and cannot be dismissed as harmless.

. Plaintiff renewed his motion in limine soon after proceedings began at 11:00 a.m. on June 4. Wilson’s testimony concluded at 1:40 p.m. that same day.