Background
Breah Bedford and Simone Jones were outside Big City Tap in Chicago after the city’s 2018 Pride Parade when an altercation developed with bar owner Joseph Plewa and his security staff. Plewa dragged Jones into an outside vestibule and held her down, while Bedford struck at Plewa and the bouncers with a bra and plastic necklace in an attempt to free Jones. After police arrived, Officer Brandon DeWitt approached Bedford from behind and shoved her to the ground. Bedford began experiencing seizure-like movements and was hospitalized for two days.
Bedford and Jones sued DeWitt, Plewa, and others. At trial, the jury found Plewa and his business liable to Jones for negligence and other state-law violations and awarded Jones slightly more than $120,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. It rejected all of Bedford’s claims, including her excessive-force claim against DeWitt. Bedford appealed only the judgment on that claim, arguing that five evidentiary rulings warranted a new trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that none of the challenged evidentiary rulings constituted reversible error. Applying deferential abuse-of-discretion review, the court upheld the admission of a defense neurologist’s brief testimony about malingering, although it recognized that such evidence can raise serious concerns when it bears on a party’s credibility or motives. The court also upheld testimony about Bedford’s behavior and statements at the hospital, including an alleged racial threat, concluding that the district court’s Rule 403 balancing was not manifestly erroneous.
The court further upheld evidence about Chicago police use-of-force training because Bedford’s request for punitive damages placed DeWitt’s mental state at issue and the jury was instructed that constitutional reasonableness remained its decision. It found no abuse of discretion in excluding emotionally charged audio from bystander videos or evidence of DeWitt’s prior uses of force, both of which the district court reasonably found risked unfair prejudice or distracting mini-trials. Because the court found no individual error, it also rejected Bedford’s cumulative-error argument.
Key Takeaways
- Expert testimony about malingering requires careful scrutiny, but the neurologist’s brief, general testimony here did not amount to reversible error under the deferential standard of review.
- Internal police use-of-force policies may be relevant to an officer’s mental state when punitive damages are sought, provided the jury is not permitted to treat departmental policy as the constitutional standard.
- A trial court may exclude contemporaneous bystander audio and an officer’s prior uses of force under Rule 403 when their limited probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or the risk of collateral mini-trials.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the substantial discretion trial judges retain when managing potentially inflammatory evidence in excessive-force cases. Even evidence that is relevant—or that may fit a hearsay exception—can be excluded under Rule 403, while prejudicial evidence may remain admissible when it bears sufficiently on damages, motive, or another disputed issue.
The opinion also cautions litigants and courts about malingering testimony. Although the panel affirmed its admission here, it emphasized that expert opinions suggesting a plaintiff is exaggerating or fabricating symptoms can intrude upon the jury’s responsibility to assess credibility and therefore should be handled with great care.