Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Perry v. Chicago Dep't of Police

November 3, 2010

DEVARIS M. PERRY
v.
CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF POLICE ET AL.



Name of Assigned Judge I. Schenkier Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Sidney than Assigned Judge

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Final pretrial conference and motion hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, the parties' motions in limine (108-109, and 111) are granted in part and denied in part as summarized below. The Court issued the following rulings on defendants' objections, as set forth on the amended exhibit list, to plaintiff's exhibits: (1) the objections to PX 1 and PX 4 are overruled, based on the limited use for which plaintiff intends to use the exhibits and subject to establishing a foundation for that use; (2) the objections to PX 7 and PX 8 are overruled; (3) the objection to PX 13 is sustained, without prejudice to plaintiff's right to use certain documents in that group exhibit to impeach or to refresh recollection; (4) the Court reserves for trial the ruling on defendants' objections to PX14, PX15, PX16, and PX17; (5) the objections to PX 18 are overruled; (6) the objection to PX 20 is sustained; (7) the objection to PX 25 is sustained; (8) the objections to PX 26 are sustained to the extent set forth in t he Court's ruling on defendants' motion in limine no. 1, and is reserved for trial as to other materials within the group exhibit; (9) the objection to PX 28 is overruled; and (10) the Court reserves for trial the ruling on defendants' objections to PX 29. The Court issued the following rulings on plaintiff's objections, as set forth in the amended exhibit list, to defendant's exhibits: (1) the objection to DX 1 is sustained; (2) the Court reserves for trial the ruling on plaintiff's objection to DX24; (3) the objection to DX26 is sustained; and (4) the Court reserves ruling on the objections to DX27, pending the submission of briefing by the parties. By the close of business on 11/4/10 each of the parties shall submit a memorandum, not to exceed five pages, setting forth their respective positions. By 9:00 a.m. on 11/08/10, the parties shall file any revised/supplemental jury instructions. By agreement, the case will proceed before a jury of twelve persons, in Courtroom 1041, and the jurors will be permitted to ask questions using the procedure set forth on the record by the Court. For further details see minute order.

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

02:00

STATEMENT

RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE:

Plaintiff's motion in limine (doc. # 111) are granted in part and denied in part as follows:

1. Motion in limine no. 1, to allow rebuttal that City will indemnify compensatory damages if defendant Keithly offers evidence of an inability to pay as a defense to the punitive damages, is granted. The Court will give a limiting instruction that defendant Keithly's financial assets are relevant only to punitive damages, and that the City indemnifies awards of compensatory damages and attorneys' fees but not punitive damages.

2. Motion in limine no. 2, to permit the Plaintiff to treat Defendant Keithly and all other officers as adverse witnesses, is granted as to defendant Keithly and withdrawn as to other police officers.

3. Motion in limine no. 3, to bar any argument or inference that defendants allegedly failed to call any witnesses, is granted as to the three specific witnesses identified in the motion (Brittney Norwood, Shawn Clark and Patrina Baker) and denied as to the other witnesses.

4. Motion in limine no. 4, to bar reference to plaintiff's criminal background, is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants may offer only evidence that plaintiff was convicted of a crime in 2004, served a sentence of 17 months incarceration, and was on parole for that offense at the time of the incident at issue in this trial.

5. Motion in limine no. 5, to bar reference to plaintiff being shot twice before this incident, is granted without objection.

6. Motion in limine no. 6, to bar reference to plaintiff being in custody on pending criminal charges, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.