Civil Procedure — new trials

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Procedure — new trials

Where there was no direct evidence to contradict the testimony of the defendants, it was not error for the district court to deny a motion for a new trial.

“Judge Chang provided a detailed explanation as to why the jury’s verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. He emphasized that ‘there was no direct evidence’ contradicting Lucas’s testimony about receiving a tip or about the tip’s details. Judge Chang criticized Judge Shadur’s opinion for ‘rel[ying] on what it viewed as the common-sense notion that the tip was too good to be true. But there was no actual evidence, let alone a manifest weight of evidence, that required the jury to reject the testimony that Lucas had received the tip.’ Judge Chang concluded that the combination of Lucas’s, Norberg’s, and Porebski’s testimony supplied sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Lucas had actually received the anonymous tip. Judge Chang also found the case report to serve as additional evidence in support of the verdict. He further pointed out that if the tip was an ‘after- the-fact cover-up,’ Lucas would have had to start laying the groundwork before the lab reports came back negative and would have had just two hours between the arrest and the report to fabricate the story. Judge Shadur’s perception of the anonymous tip is understandable, given the conflicting testimony and the lack of details in the case report; however, the standard for granting a new trial requires the jury’s verdict to be against the manifest weight of the evidence. See Mejia, 650 F.3d at 633. We agree with Judge Chang’s assessment that sufficient evidence was presented to the jury to support its verdict.”

Affirmed.

11-2319 Galvan v. Norberg

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Chang, J., Flaum, J.