United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
September 2, 2003
JACK WEBB, PLAINTIFF, VS. CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS STEVEN AMATO, STAR NO. 9788 AND JACK DEDORE, STAR NO. 6889, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Moran, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDOM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants have filed thirteen motions in limine. We rule as follows:
1. The motion to bar any claim for lost wages is denied. That plaintiff may rely solely on oral testimony, without any supporting records, goes to credibility.
2. The motion to bar evidence of violations of police regulations or general orders is deferred. We are not advised what police regulations or general orders may be involved, nor is the relevance for impeachment purposes described. Rulings should be deferred until there is a factual context during trial.
3. The motion to bar any reference to defendants' counsel as corporation counsel or city lawyers is granted. We see no useful purpose for such a designation.
4. The motion to bar any reference to a "Code of Silence" is granted in part Plaintiff is not entitled to engage In a general attack on the Chicago Police Department, although he may seek to develop the theme that the officers involved in the events of August 25, 1997, are protecting each other. Page 2
5. The motion to bar references to recent events involving the police using force, such events being unrelated to the events at issue in this lawsuit, is granted.
6. The motion to bar references to Indemnification is granted.
7. The motion to bar evidence of prior complaints or lawsuits is deferred until briefing on plaintiffs corresponding motion is complete.
8. The motion to redact disclaimers is granted. What a defendant may have said in a report is clearly admissible as an admission, but the disclaimers, routinely included for reasons unrelated to the substance of the reports, add nothing and would require an explanation.
9. The motion to bar evidence of the disposition of the criminal charge Is denied. The jury should not be left to speculate about what happened. Defendants' concerns can be addressed by advising the Jury that the burden of proof in the criminal case was proof beyond a reasonable doubt
10. The motion to bar any statements made by Judge Bertucci is granted.
11. The motion to exclude witnesses is granted.
12. and 13. The motions to bar medical care and medical injury testimony are denied. Plaintiff is entitled to introduce evidence of what his medical needs were, what was furnished to him, and what impact that had, and to argue that the arrest proximately caused injury arising from the delay In receiving medicines or from negligent care, for the reasons previously related in the Memorandum Opinions and Orders of July 14, 2002 and May 16, 2003. Page 1
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.