Christmas v. City of Chicago

In section 1983 action alleging that defendants-police officials violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights by arresting plaintiff on drug charge without probable cause, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion for new trial based on claim that three of defendants’ witnesses violated Dist. Ct’s order precluding references to certain 911 calls that implicated plaintiff in drug sales. Record showed either that plaintiff waived any issue by failing to timely object to witness’ reference to 911 call, or that another witness’ reference to 911 call was too brief to constitute substantial influence on jury, or that different reference to 911 dispatch was adequately addressed by curative jury instruction. Additionally, Ct. rejected plaintiff’s argument that he was entitled to new trial based on improper comments made about plaintiff by defendant’s counsel during sidebar, since Dist. Ct., which also rejected plaintiff’s argument, was in best position to gauge any effect of said comments on jury.