Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Redwood v. Dobson

476 F.3d 462 (2007)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 31,100+ case briefs...

Redwood v. Dobson

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

476 F.3d 462 (2007)

Facts

Attorney Harvey Welch (defendant) defended Erik Redwood (plaintiff) unsuccessfully on battery charges. Redwood blamed his conviction on Welch, who was Black, and called him a “shoe-shine boy.” A scuffle ensued, and Redwood sued Welch for battery. Welch counterclaimed for defamation and asked prosecutors to charge Redwood with inciting a breach of the peace. Assistant state’s attorney Elizabeth Dobson (defendant) charged Redwood with committing a hate crime by using a demeaning term that started a physical confrontation. Police officer Troy Phillips presented the evidence, and the grand jury indicted Redwood. Welch’s attorney in the civil litigation, Marvin Gerstein, suggested he could persuade Dobson to drop the hate-crime charges if the civil suit settled. Redwood and his wife (plaintiff) sued alleging Dobson, Phillips, Welch, Gerstein, and the City of Urbana (defendants) conspired to maliciously prosecute Redwood and violated his First Amendment rights by discriminating against his religion, which he claimed led him to “teach truth and righteousness to all persons” including Welch. Attorney Charles Danner represented the Redwoods and took Gerstein’s deposition. Danner started by extensively questioning Gerstein about his criminal and state-bar disciplinary records and psychiatric counseling or anger-management therapy without explaining how his questions might lead to admissible evidence. Without asserting privilege or requesting a protective order, Gerstein’s counsel Roger Webber instructed Gerstein not to answer, including when Danner asked Gerstein whether he was homosexual and involved in a homosexual clique with others in the lawsuit. When Danner asked Gerstein if he had discussed his deposition with Webber during a break, Gerstein pretended not to understand ordinary words, then said he could not recall. Webber kept instructing Gerstein not to answer, and the deposition became so heated that the Redwoods claimed Gerstein flipped Danner “the finger.” Dobson’s attorney, Richard Klaus, joined in some of Webber’s objections. The Redwoods requested sanctions, but the judge refused, declaring everyone had behaved badly, with Danner the worst offender, and that it was “ludicrous” to argue attorneys could not instruct witnesses not to answer. Instead, the court granted summary judgment against the Redwoods. The Redwoods appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Easterbrook, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 556,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 556,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 31,100 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 556,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 31,100 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership