## Facts

- Chicago police stopped a gray Toyota Avalon after it sped from an alley; the driver fled on foot, leaving a front-seat passenger and several teenagers in the back.
- The Toyota rolled and became wedged between Officer Flaherty’s squad car and another parked car; front-seat passenger Jaquon Grant became pinned.
- Thirteen-year-old Kevon Brown attempted to flee through a rear window and was partially outside the car.
- Officers Marco Proano and Guy Habiak arrived; Proano exited with his firearm drawn and aimed at the Toyota.
- A backseat passenger, Delquantis Bates, put the car in reverse; as it reversed, a metal BB gun fell from the Toyota to the ground.
- As the Toyota reversed and no person was in its path, Proano fired sixteen shots into the moving vehicle, continuing as it pivoted and rolled forward into a light pole.
- Ten bullets entered the Toyota; Bates was shot in the shoulder and grazed in the face, and another passenger was shot in the leg and foot.
- No other officer fired; after the shooting, Proano reported he shot due to an “imminent threat of battery.”
- A dash-cam video captured the entire incident and was shown to the jury multiple times.
- A federal grand jury charged Proano with two counts of willful deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law, 18 U.S.C. § 242, based on unreasonable, excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- A jury convicted Proano on both counts; the district court sentenced him to 60 months’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence and testimony regarding Chicago Police Department training and use-of-force policies were improperly admitted under Rules 401–403 in a § 242 excessive-force prosecution.
2. Whether limited evidence referring to internal disciplinary matters and broader investigations was irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial under Rules 401–403.
3. Whether the jury instruction on § 242 “willfulness” correctly stated the required mens rea.
4. Whether the prosecution was tainted by use (direct or indirect) of Garrity-protected compelled statements from internal investigations, requiring suppression or dismissal.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting training and policy evidence for reasonableness and willfulness purposes, with limiting instructions.
- The court found no reversible error in the narrowly constrained admission of disciplinary-related context and references to broader investigations.
- The court upheld the willfulness instruction as consistent with controlling precedent and sufficient to convey § 242’s heightened intent requirement.
- The court affirmed denial of the Garrity motion because federal prosecutors were not exposed to compelled statements and the government proved independent sources for its evidence and strategy.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 242, “willfully” requires proof the defendant acted voluntarily and intentionally with specific intent to do what the law forbids, i.e., with a bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law; negligence, mistake, accident, or gross negligence is insufficient.
- Departmental policies and training do not define the Fourth Amendment standard, but may be relevant evidence of (i) what an officer was taught, (ii) whether conduct departed from that training, and (iii) whether the officer knew the conduct was wrongful, bearing on willfulness.
- Rule 403 balancing affords substantial discretion to the trial court; potential prejudice from policy or disciplinary context may be addressed through narrow admission and limiting instructions.
- Under Garrity, compelled statements given under threat of job loss may not be used in a criminal case; when taint is alleged, the government must show its evidence and trial preparation came from independent, untainted sources, including recordings, witness testimony, and routine reports, and may satisfy that burden by screening prosecutors from compelled materials.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld § 242 convictions arising from an officer’s shooting into a vehicle, ruling that training and policy evidence was properly admitted to inform reasonableness and willfulness, the willfulness instruction correctly required specific intent to disregard the law, and the prosecution was untainted by any Garrity-protected compelled statements due to independent evidentiary sources and prosecutorial insulation.


United States v. Proano, 912 F.3d 431 (7th Cir. 2019)