◆ SpookStack

*@ a - 8 — Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 ~ ** 1? DIRECTED VERDICT ? « We first consider the rulings of the district court directing a verdict for twenty-one of the defendants at the close of plaintiffs’ case in chief, and for the remain- _ ing seven defendants (who fired their weapons during the raid) after the jury was deadlocked. On appeal plain- tiffs assert that the trial court disregarded the proper legal standard,in granting the directed verdicts and that their claims ‘justitied submission to the jury. This court has,enunciated ‘on numerous oceasions -the rule that a motiori for a directed verdict must be denied when the evidence reveals that reasonable persons “in a fair and impartial exercise of their judgment may draw different conclusions therefrom.” Hannigan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 410 F.2d 285, 287 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 902 (1969). The function of the trial.court con- sidering such a motion was further discussed in Byrd v. Brishke, 466 F.2d 6, 9 (7th Cir. 1972), a civil rights ac- tion involving facts similar to the case at bar. in Byrd we emphatically stated that the court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the jury and accordingly we reversed a ruling by the district judge granting defen- dants’ motion for a directed verdict on the grounds that the court weighed the. testimonial evidence and passed on the credibility of the witnesses. Jd. The function of the trial judge is to review the testimony most strongly against the moving party “and if there is doubt, or the question is close, the case should go to the jury.” Keaton v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe RR Co., 321 F.2d 317, 318 (7th Cir. 1963). On appeal our task’ is equally well established. We - must consider all the evidence—disregarding con- flicting, unfavorable testimony—and extract all the reasonable inferences therefrom. Viewing sueh evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the plain- tiffs, the question is whether a prima facie case has been presented against any of the defendants. Clark v. Uni- versal Builders, Inc., 501 F.2d 824 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1070 (1974); Kish v. Norfolk & Western Ry Co., 426 F.2d 1132 (7th Cir. 1970); Pinkowski v. Sher- man Hotel, 318 F.2d 190 (7th Cir. 1963).