Evidence – Malicious prosecution

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Evidence – Malicious prosecution

In a malicious prosecution trial, it was not error to admit police officer testimony about the ways in which drug dealers behave.

“We may make short work of Venson’s contention that various evidentiary rulings deprived him of a fair trial, as we have already touched upon each of the rulings that he cites as error on the part of the district court. First, Venson contends that the court was mistaken to permit the defendants to testify, based on their experience in the field, about the ways in which drug dealers behave. In Venson’s view, this amounted to improper expert testimony, and apart from that was irrelevant, speculative, and prejudicial. But as we have indicated, the testimony of which Venson complains was limited, was based on the officers’ own experiences, was subject to cross-examination, was arguably relevant both to illuminate why the officers believed that Venson was committing a crime and to address Venson’s central argument that the behavior the officers attributed to him was entirely implausible. And if some of the testimony amounted to improperly admitted expert opinion, it was harmless for the reasons we have already discussed.”

Affirmed.

12-1015 Venson v. Altamirano

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Castillo, J., Rovner, J.

Full Text

13-1321