Donna Flournoy v. City of Chicago
829 F.3d 869 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2016
Facts
In November 2008, Chicago police officer Robert Lobianco obtained a search warrant for a garden apartment at 1108 N. Lawler Ave., based on information that a man named Anthony was selling crack cocaine and carried a handgun. Due to the perceived high risk, SWAT team assistance was requested, and a plan for a "dynamic entry" was prepared, authorizing the use of flashbang grenades. On the evening of November 13, 2008, the SWAT team executed the warrant. After officers knocked and announced but received no answer, they breached the door. Officer Colbenson used a tool to clear windows, momentarily seeing Donna Flournoy move off an air mattress, whom he did not recognize. Officer Quinn then tossed a flashbang into the apartment's entryway, which severely wounded Flournoy's right leg. The search subsequently uncovered narcotics and a loaded handgun.
Procedural history
Flournoy filed a civil action against Officers Quinn and Colbenson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The district court entered final judgment for the defendants and denied Flournoy’s motion for a new trial, leading Flournoy to file a timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Issue
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Flournoy's motion for a new trial, specifically regarding whether the jury's verdict of no excessive force was against the manifest weight of the evidence, whether a handwritten notation on a police report was erroneously excluded, and whether a note submitted by the jury invalidated the verdict?
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Flournoy's motion for a new trial, finding that the jury's verdict was supported by the record, the district court's evidentiary ruling was not an abuse of discretion, and the jury's statement was consistent with the verdict and did not affect its validity.
Rule
A new trial may be granted only if the jury’s verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, meaning no rational jury could have rendered the verdict. Excessive force under the Fourth Amendment is determined by whether officers' actions were objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene making split-second judgments. Hearsay is generally inadmissible unless it falls under an exception, such as the business-records exception (requiring the record to be made at or near the time, by someone with knowledge, and in the course of regularly conducted activity) or the residual exception (requiring circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness and high probativeness). Additional jury notations not directly responsive to the charge and verdict form are considered surplusage and do not impeach the validity of the verdict.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.