Hill v. Coppleson
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23940
7th Cir.2010Background
- Hill was exonerated after DNA showed no involvement in the Morgan crimes.
- Hill sued the City of Chicago, detectives Halloran and Boudreau, and ASA Rogers alleging Fifth Amendment coercion and §1983 conspiracy.
- Rogers moved for summary judgment asserting prosecutorial immunity; district court denied; Rogers appeals.
- Key factual disputes concern whether Hill confessed before or after Rogers arrived at the station and whether Rogers fed Hill details or coerced him.
- The court held it lacked jurisdiction to decide immunity due to unresolved material facts requiring credibility determinations.
- The result was dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rogers has absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts | Hill asserts Rogers participated in coercion. | Rogers acted as advocate only if prob. cause existed before arrival. | No jurisdiction to decide; factual dispute unresolved. |
| Whether Rogers has qualified immunity for alleged coercion | Hill's rights were violated by coercion. | No clearly established rights were violated; depends on facts. | No jurisdiction to decide; factual dispute unresolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hansen v. Bennett, 948 F.2d 397 (7th Cir.1991) (limits interlocutory review of immunity when facts are disputed)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (defendant may not appeal district court on genuine factual issues)
- Leaf v. Shelnutt, 400 F.3d 1070 (7th Cir.2005) (review when law is not dependent on factual disputes)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (prosecutor absolute immunity depends on role and probable cause)
- Smith v. Power, 346 F.3d 740 (7th Cir.2003) (absolute immunity when acting as advocate; not when investigating)
- White v. Gerardot, 509 F.3d 829 (7th Cir.2007) (no jurisdiction where arguments depend on disputed facts)
- Via v. LaGrand, 469 F.3d 618 (7th Cir.2006) (no interlocutory review where outcomes depend on factual disputes)
- Viilo v. Eyre, 547 F.3d 707 (7th Cir.2008) (acting within immunity framework requires factual clarity)