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.

Patrick v. The City of Chicago

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

April 3, 2017

DEON PATRICK., Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          RONALD A. GUZMAN DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The parties have submitted deposition designations and objections for Adrian Grimes, plaintiffs witness who has become unavailable. The Court rules as follows:

         Page 23:16-24:9 Defendants Objection: Leading and mischaracterizes the evidence: SUSTAINED. LEADING.

         Page 29:10-35:10 Defendants: Objection to Page 32:20-33:3: Relevance, Rule 403, violates order on Motion in Limine #15 regarding other police misconduct. OVERRULED.

         Page 35:23-36:5 Defendants' Objection: Leading and mischaracterizes; Grimes had not previously stated he had told the police he had not seen Daniel Taylor on 11/16/92. SUSTAINED. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE AND MISCHARACTERIZES PRIOR TESTIMONY.

         Page 36:7-38:18 Plaintiff: 36:7 - SUSTAINED, LEADING. 36:12 SUSTAINED, LEADING. 36:14 OVERRULED. 36:19 SUSTAINED, CALLS FOR CONCLUSION, MISCHARACTERIZES, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. 37:6 - OVERRULED. 37:12 SUSTAFNED LEADING. 38:8 OVERRULED.

         Page 42:1-44:14 Defendants: Objection to Page 43:13-19: Asked and answered (at 37:6- 16), non-responsive, confusing. Objection to Page 44:6-12: Foundation, Speculation. OBJECTIONS OVERRULED.

         Page 47:11-48:14 Defendant's Objection to Page 47:19-48:14: non-responsive. OBJECTION OVERRULED.

         Page 49:2-10 Defendants' Objection: Non-Responsive; The question asks about what happened before Grimes' 1995 trial testimony, but he answers about what happened during his trial testimony: OVERRULED. ONLY QUESTIONING COUNSEL CAN OBJECT TO RESPONSIVENESS OF A QUESTION.

         Page 54:4-7 Defendants' Objection: Speculation; Foundation. OVERRULED. WITNESS CAN GIVE AN OPINION AS TO WHO HE WOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED AT A GIVEN POINT IN HIS LIFE.

         Page 57:13-59:1 Defendants: Objection to Page 57:13-59:1: Relevance, Rule 403.

         SUSTAINED PURSUANT TO R. 403 AS TO ALL BEGINNING AT 58:3 TO 59:1.

         Page 74:23-24 and 75:24-76:3 Defendants' Objection: Improper attorney objections after the question (i.e. coaching the witness) SUSTAINED. INTERRUPTING A WITNESS BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE ANSWER THE WTINESS IS GIVING AND IN ORDER TO INTERJECT YOUR OWN QUESTION AND ATTEMPT TO CURE THE DAMAGE IS SANCTIONABLE MISCONDUCT.

         Page 80:15-81:5 (end at "like that") Plaintiff: FRE 609 (b); and 403. More than 10 years have passed since conviction/confinement. None of the crimes (possession of drugs or intent to deliver or stolen car) pertain to a dishonest act or false statement - particularly where he pled guilty to the crime. Prejudice outweighs probative value. OVERRULED. ENTIRE CRIMINAL HISTORY OF THIS WITNESS WILL BE ALLOWED. THE COURT FINDS THAT THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE CONVICTIONS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHS THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT. SPECIFICALLY THIS WITNESS IS OF GREAT SIGNIFICANCE AS HE DIRECTLY CORROBORATES PLAINTIFFS ASSERTIONS OF FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE. HIS CREDIBILITY IS THEREFORE CRUCIAL. IN THAT REGARD THE WITNESS APPARENTLY HARBORS ILL WILL AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS IN GENERAL BASED UPON HIS BELIEF THAT HE ALSO WAS FRAMED BY POLICE OFFICERS WHO LIED TO CONVICT HIM IN AT LEAST ONE OF HIS PRIOR CASES. HE ALSO BELIEVES THAT HIS PUBLIC DEFENDER AND THE JUDGE IN THAT CASE CONSPIRED WITH THE POLICE TO WRONGFULLY CONVICT HIM. THE TIMING AND DETAILS OF SOME OF HIS CONVICTIONS ALSO CASTS SOME DOUBT ON HIS CLAIMS THAT HE WAS OFFERED LENIENT TREATMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS PERJURED TESTIMONY AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF. IN SHORT, THE JURY NEEDS TO HEAR THE ENTIRETY OF THIS WITNESSES BACKGROUND AND INTERACTION (OR LACK OF IT) WITH THE PLAINTIFF, HIS CO-DEFENDANTS AND WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE COURTS OVER MUCH OF HIS LIFE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO WEIGH THE CREDIBILITY OF HIS CLAIMS OF BEING FORCED TO GIVE FABRICATED PERJURED TESTIMONY AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF AND BEING OFFERED LENIENT TREATMENT AS WELL. HOWEVER, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CONVICTION FOR WHICH HE CLAIMS HE WAS FRAMED BY A CONSPIRACEY BETWEEN THE ARRESTING OFFICERS, HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND THE JUDGE, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME HE SPENT IN JAIL FOR EACH OF THE CONVICTIONS ARE MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE AND THE OBJECTION TO THAT TESTIMONY IS SUSTAINED.

         Page 81:5-7 Defendants' Objection: Non-Responsive. OBJECTION OVERRULED.

         Page 81:8-23 Plaintiff: Same as above. OBJECTION OVERRULED.

         Page 82:9-85:1 Plaintiff: Same as above; these crimes are from 2001 and prior; issues re: changes of judges, etc. are irrelevant. OVERRULED Page 85:20-86-4 Defendants' Objection: Relevance. Also, the experience the witness refers to is inadmissible, rendering this question and answer inadmissible. OBJECTION OVERRULED. DEFENDANTS OPENDED THE DOOR FOR WITNESS GRIMES' PREJUDICE/BIAS BY OFFERING 82:9 - 85:1. TESTIMONY THAT REBUTS THAT, THEN BECOMES ADMISSIBLE.

         Page 86:21 -88:9 Plaintiff: Same as ...


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.