981 F.3d 534
7th Cir.2020Background
- Nathson Fields was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for 1984 double murders; convictions were later vacated, he was retried and acquitted in 2009, and then brought a 2010 § 1983 and state-law suit alleging fabricated evidence and withheld exculpatory material by Chicago detectives and the City.
- Trials: first civil trial ended in mistrial; second resulted in an $80,000 verdict on a due-process claim against Detective O’Callaghan; district court granted motions for new trials; third trial produced a $22 million compensatory verdict against O’Callaghan, Murphy, and the City, plus modest punitive awards against the officers.
- Fields alleged detectives fabricated identifications, withheld “street” (basement) files that contained exculpatory material, and coerced witnesses; he also asserted Monell municipal-liability based on a policy/practice of withholding street files.
- Defendants contested multiple evidentiary rulings (wiretaps, prior-arrest evidence, witness foundation, inmate visit records, Morris affidavits, alleged white-outs) and challenged the court’s discovery and jury-instruction decisions.
- District court granted a post-trial new trial (Rule 60 and Rule 59 grounds) in part based on newly discovered / misleading information about witness Earl Hawkins’s sentence and early release—finding pretrial misrepresentations or at least materially misleading assurances about Hawkins’s lack of benefit from testifying—and on discovery limits that impaired Fields’s ability to prove Monell liability.
- Seventh Circuit majority affirmed the district court on all challenged points; Chief Judge Sykes dissented as to the Rule 60(b) new-trial grant, arguing the new evidence was only impeachment and that Rule 60(b)(3) fraud arguments were waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of various defense proffered evidence (wiretaps, TEC-9 arrest, witness foundation, visitor list, Stateville report, 1972 conviction) | Fields argued exclusions were proper or harmless; he contended some evidence was irrelevant/prejudicial and that foundational gaps existed for proffered evidence | Defendants argued exclusions denied them fair opportunity to rebut Fields’s peaceful-character narrative and impeach credibility | Court upheld most exclusions (wiretaps hearsay/multi-level hearsay; arrest evidence inadmissible for impeachment absent conviction; testimony limited to witnesses’ personal knowledge; visitor list and incident report excluded for lack of foundation/multi-level hearsay; 1972 murder conviction limited due to age/prejudice) |
| Admission of Morris affidavits (impeachment of prior trial testimony) | Fields relied on Morris affidavits to show witness recantation and to assess materiality of withheld/fabricated evidence | Defendants argued prior testimony was used non-hearsay and Rule 806 did not apply; also argued prejudice and discovery issues | Court allowed Morris affidavits under Rule 806 because transcript had been used for hearsay purposes; Rule 403 balancing and discovery rulings were not abused |
| Rule 60(b) motion/new trial based on Hawkins’s release and alleged pretrial deal | Fields argued newly discovered evidence and misrepresentations about Hawkins’s sentence and release timeline (and defendants’ role) undermined the earlier verdict and were not merely impeachment | Defendants said the evidence was impeachment only, district court abused discretion, and fraud theory was not pleaded below | Majority affirmed grant of new trial under Rule 60(b)(2) (and alternatively found Rule 60(b)(3) support): post-trial developments showed a pretrial understanding and coordinated actions that materially misrepresented Hawkins’s exposure and were likely to change the verdict; dissent would have reversed |
| Discovery limits re: “street” (basement) files and Monell claim | Fields argued protective-order limits prevented him from identifying other cases with withheld street-file material and so foreclosed proof of a municipal policy/custom (Monell) | City argued single-instance evidence and limited proof from other cases were insufficient to establish municipal policy or deliberate indifference | Court held discovery limitation prejudiced Fields’ ability to prove Monell; granted new trial on Monell grounds and found evidence presented at trial (street files, prior litigation notice) was sufficient to send Monell question to jury |
| JMOL challenge by City after second/third trials on Monell sufficiency | City argued Fields failed to show systemic practice or that withheld material affected other prosecutions; a single instance cannot establish Monell absent other similar violations | Fields argued prior suits, internal inquiries, and evidence of street-file practice put City on notice and that systemic underproduction existed | Court rejected JMOL: evidence of street files, prior litigation notice, and the City’s insufficient remedial policies provided a legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find Monell liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy, custom, or final policymaker causing constitutional violation)
- Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1988) (describing police "street files" withheld from prosecutors/defense and related due-process concerns)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (Monell deliberate-indifference standard and notice requirement)
- J.K.J. v. Polk Cty., 960 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2020) (municipal inaction may constitute deliberate indifference where risk is known or obvious)
- Doornbos v. City of Chicago, 868 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2017) (deference to district court evidentiary rulings and Rule 403 analysis)
- Lewis v. City of Chicago Police Dept., 590 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 2009) (new-trial standard for prejudicial evidentiary error)
- Lonsdorf v. Seefeldt, 47 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 1995) (Rule 60(b)(3) elements: meritorious claim, fraud prevented fair presentation)
- Flournoy v. City of Chicago, 829 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2016) (Rule 807 residual hearsay and comparative probative value)
- Cody v. Harris, 409 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2005) (residual hearsay exception and considerations of trustworthiness)
- Lee v. Vill. of River Forest, 936 F.2d 976 (7th Cir. 1991) (abuse-of-discretion review standard for Rule 60 motions)