Latino v. Kaizer
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
58 F.3d 310 (1995)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Police officer Edward Kaizer (defendant) arrested Daniel Latino and Robert Slawinski (plaintiffs) for scalping four basketball tickets outside a basketball arena. After Latino and Slawinski were released, they sued Kaizer in federal district court on civil charges of false arrest and civil rights violations. At trial, the basic question was whether the two men went to the arena criminally intending to scalp all four tickets, or innocently intending only to sell the two tickets they did not need. The jurors heard complex and highly contradictory testimony on this question, including Kaizer's testimony about the circumstances under which he confiscated the four tickets. The jury verdict was for Kaizer. The judge ruled that the jurors must have inferred from Kaizer's testimony that Latino and Slawinski criminally intended to scalp all four tickets, and that the jurors must have based their verdict solely on that inference. In addition, the judge concluded that Kaizer's testimony was objectively improbable, thereby indicating his testimony was perjured. The judge therefore vacated the jury verdict and ordered a new trial. The second trial resulted in a verdict for Latino and Slawinski, and Kaizer appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sharp, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.