Farnik v. City of Chicago

In plaintiff’s prosecution in section 1983 action, alleging that defendants-police officials used excessive force and made false arrest on charge of animal cruelty that was ultimately dismissed, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion for mistrial, even though potential juror stated that she might have had negative experience with plaintiff and gave “thumbs up” to one defendant in presence of jurors, since said juror gave only equivocal statement regarding her recognition of plaintiffs, and since juror told Dist. Ct. that she had not discussed specifics of possible negative interaction with plaintiff with any other members of venire. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in disallowing plaintiff to testify about death of friend to explain why he was one minute late to trial, since Dist. Ct. could limit plaintiff’s testimony to issues relevant to substantive issues in instant case, which did not relate to death pf plaintiff’s friend. Too, defense counsel could accurately state that one defendant would be personally liable for any punitive damages award without making any reference to said defendant’s ability to pay, and any failure by Dist. Ct. to give instruction about source of punitive and compensatory damages did not require new trial, since plaintiff failed to show that he was prejudiced by said failure. Furthermore, Dist. Ct. did not err by giving animal neglect instruction with respect to plaintiff’s false arrest claim, even though defendant was arrested on animal cruelty charge, since question for jury was whether defendants had probable cause to make arrest on any offense, as opposed to whether defendants had probable cause to arrest defendant on charged animal cruelty offense.