No. 5-99-0830 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ... - Appellate.net
No. 5-99-0830 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ... - Appellate.net
No. 5-99-0830 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ... - Appellate.net
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
F.2d 301 (7th Cir. 1<strong>99</strong>2). In this case, Ryles and Hunter contributed no expertise; rather,<br />
they served merely as conduits through whom plaintiffs’ counsel funneled to the jury reams<br />
of documents about which Ryles and Hunter lacked any personal knowledge.<br />
Admission of Ryles’ and Hunter’s uninformed testimony prejudiced State Farm by<br />
giving the jurors the impression that the court had shifted to these “experts” the jurors’<br />
responsibility for deciding the case. See 1 MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE § 12, at 51 (5th ed.<br />
1<strong>99</strong>9); Wakeford v. Rodehouse Restaurants, 223 Ill.App.3d 31, 48 (5th Dist. 1<strong>99</strong>1), aff’d,<br />
154 Ill.2d 543 (1<strong>99</strong>2). Exploiting that impression, Ryles actually told the jury that it was his<br />
job to weigh the evidence and to determine whether the burden of proof had been met. R.<br />
4864 (“I decided what the preponderance of the evidence was”); R. 4919 (“I don’t believe<br />
[State Farm has] sufficient evidence to show that these parts are of like kind and quality”).<br />
The dangers of allowing a witness to assume the mantle of “super-juror,” Haas v.<br />
Abrahamson, 705 F. Supp. 1370, 1375 (E.D. Wis. 1989), aff’d, 910 F.2d 384 (7th Cir. 1<strong>99</strong>0),<br />
are convincingly demonstrated by Ryles’ own testimony: he got the burden of proof exactly<br />
backwards, advising the jury to find State Farm liable because State Farm had allegedly<br />
failed to prove by “a preponderance of the evidence . . . that these parts are equal to or better<br />
than OEM parts.” R. 4864.<br />
While allowing Ryles and Hunter to improperly “interpret” State Farm documents,<br />
the court inexplicably refused to allow State Farm to explain its own documents. For<br />
example, throughout the trial plaintiffs harped on a State Farm memo containing the<br />
following sentence: “A pick-up truck might make better sense for the usage of [non-OEM<br />
parts] than a Mercedes.” PX 433. In opening argument, plaintiffs claimed that this memo<br />
-100-