10-3728 Cobige v. City of Chicago

Listen to this article

Evidence
Other acts

In a civil rights action where the damages included wrongful death, it was error to exclude the plaintiff’s history of drug abuse and criminality.

“Rule 403, which permits a judge to exclude relevant evidence ‘if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,’ does not justify exclusion of this evidence. The effect that Chicago sought would not have been ‘unfair prejudice’; the evidence bore directly on the appropriate amount of damages. When the law makes damages depend on matters such as the emotional tie between mother and son, the defendant is entitled to show that the decedent’s character flaws undermined the quality of advice and support that she could have supplied. This kind of effect is not ‘prejudice’ at all—not unless we count as ‘prejudice’ all evidence that undermines the other side’s contentions, see Thompson v. Chicago, 472 F.3d 444, 456 (7th Cir. 2006)—let alone ‘unfair prejudice’. Defendants preserved their position on this subject by trying multiple times to have this evidence admitted, even after the pretrial ruling in limine that forbade its use; the district court did not find a procedural default, and we reject Maurice’s contention that the absence of a formal offer of proof at trial is conclusive against the defendants. See Fed. R. Evid. 103(a) (no need to renew an offer of proof after a definitive pretrial ruling).”

Affirmed in part and Reversed in part.

10-3728 Cobige v. City of Chicago

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, St. Eve, J., Easterbrook, J.

Full Text