## Facts

- Chicago police received a 911 call from 2905 North Troy Street reporting a man wanted by the police was or had been at that address.
- Officers Calandra and Kusar responded, found the front door partially open, and saw no one outside.
- After knocking and announcing themselves with no response, the officers entered the home without a warrant.
- Inside, the officers heard noises behind a closed kitchen door; a large German Shepherd emerged.
- Officer Kusar testified the dog lunged at him; he fired two shots, killing the dog.
- John Clinton Ellis, a 21-year-old deaf-mute, was home alone and later became extremely upset upon discovering the dog had been shot.
- The Ellises sued the City of Chicago, its police department, and Officer Kusar under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment for damages based on the warrantless entry and shooting.
- At the jury trial, plaintiffs called Calandra and Sergeant Holub as adverse witnesses; the court limited leading questions and excluded certain proffered evidence.
- The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and judgment was entered accordingly.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c) by refusing to permit leading questions when plaintiffs called police employees associated with the municipal defendant.
2. Whether the district court’s other evidentiary rulings were erroneous and, if so, whether they affected plaintiffs’ substantial rights.
3. Whether an allegedly erroneous jury instruction on the elements of § 1983 liability (including probable cause concepts) warranted reversal despite plaintiffs’ failure to object under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for the City and Officer Kusar.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by restricting leading questions because Rule 611(c) left the matter to the court and the witnesses were not shown to be hostile or evasive.
- Any challenged evidentiary rulings were within the district court’s discretion or, at most, harmless because plaintiffs did not show prejudice affecting substantial rights.
- The jury-instruction challenge was not preserved under Rule 51; reviewing only for plain error, the court concluded the instructions, read as a whole, did not plainly misstate the law or justify disturbing the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c) permits but does not require leading questions for witnesses identified with an adverse party; the trial judge has discretion, and reversal requires a showing of prejudice.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and are not reversible absent an effect on substantial rights (harmless-error standard).
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51 generally bars appellate review of jury-instruction objections not timely and specifically raised at trial; unpreserved claims are reviewed only for plain error.
- Jury instructions are assessed in their entirety; an appellant must show the overall charge misstated the law in a way likely to have affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit left the defense verdict intact because the trial court’s management of leading questions and other evidence fell within permissible discretion or caused no prejudicial harm, and the plaintiffs’ jury-instruction complaint was forfeited and did not meet the plain-error standard when the charge was considered as a whole.


Ellis v. City of Chicago, 667 F.2d 606 (7th Cir. 1981)