Herbert Whitlock v. Charles Bruegge
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10825
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Rhodes couple murdered in 1986; Whitlock and Steidl convicted in 1987, later exonerated/released after Brady violations; investigation team included Paris police, ISP, and State’s Attorney McFatridge; key witnesses Reinbolt and Herrington recanted, alleging police coercion; later authorities discovered fabrication/inadequate disclosure undermining the convictions; Whitlock and Steidl filed 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state-law claims; district court denied most summary-judgment motions, leading to this interlocutory appeal.
- Recantations and later investigations showed coercion and fabrication; Callahan’s findings suppressed by ISP defendants; later investigations (2000–2003) led to vacatur of Steidl’s conviction in 2003 and Whitlock’s in 2007, with Whitlock released in 2008; petitions and appeals followed; district court’s immunity rulings are central to the appeals.
- The appeal involves police defendants seeking interlocutory review of summary judgment on qualified/absolute immunity; McFatridge (the State’s Attorney) appeals on immunity issues across three time periods (pre-arrest, post-arrest, and post-appeal).
- ISP defendants challenge whether Brady obligations and post-conviction Brady disclosures support immunity defenses; court addresses whether Brady rights extend through post-conviction and clemency proceedings and whether ISP immunity applies to state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review police defendants’ immunity appeal | Plaintiffs argue legal questions predominate over facts. | Police contend appeal raises legal questions about immunity. | Lack of jurisdiction; appears to review merits only on the record, not purely legal questions. |
| Pre-arrest phase: whether McFatridge has absolute immunity | Fabrication of evidence during investigation could defeat immunity. | McFatridge argues either absolute immunity or, at minimum, qualified immunity. | No jurisdiction to resolve due to disputed facts; probable cause timing is decisive for immunity. |
| McFatridge’s qualified-immunity claim for investigatory conduct | Fabrication during investigation violated clearly established rights. | Absolute immunity for prosecutorial actions post-arrest; investigatory conduct not clearly barred. | Plaintiffs state a potential due-process violation; however, qualified immunity determination depends on clearly established law and factual record. |
| Brady rights and post-conviction disclosure by ISP | Brady obligations extend to post-conviction/clemency and pretrial disclosures known before trial. | Osborne narrows Brady to pretrial exculpatory evidence; post-conviction disclosure not required. | Brady disclosure obligation extends to pretrial knowledge and continues through post-conviction processes; not limited by Osborne. |
| ISP immunity and state-law claims | State-law immunity distinctions should not bar §1983/Brady claims. | Officials are immune when acting within scope; here actions to conceal exculpatory evidence fall outside scope. | District court’s denial of ISP immunity affirmed; state-law immunity inapplicable to the Brady-disclosure claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court 1993) (prosecutorial immunity; prosecutorial/investigative function distinction)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court 1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutors in their role as advocates)
- Fields v. Wharrie, 672 F.3d 505 (7th Cir. 2012) (clarifies absolute immunity scope and pre-arrest conduct)
- Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (Supreme Court 1935) (due-process violation for use of perjured testimony; foundational to fabrication claims)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (Supreme Court 1959) (prosecutor’s duty to correct false testimony; fabrication concerns)
- Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1988) (fabrication of evidence as a due-process violation; proximate causation concepts)
- Dominguez v. Hendley, 545 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2008) (fabrication of evidence and due process; causal link to trial outcome)
- Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000) (proximate cause in constitutional torts; multiple proximate causes common)
- Lanier v. United States, 520 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court 1997) (clear warning standard for clearly established rights)