Nathson Fields v. Lawrence Wharrie
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1333
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Nathson Fields was convicted of two murders, imprisoned 17 years, acquitted at retrial, and obtained (initially) a certificate of innocence; he sued prosecutors Wharrie and Kelley under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Illinois tort law for coercing/fabricating false witness testimony.
- Fields alleges Wharrie fabricated a witness statement during a 1985 investigation (pre-charge) that was later used at trial; he also alleges Wharrie and Kelley induced false testimony in 1998 while prosecution/retrial was pending.
- The district court initially dismissed some federal claims on absolute prosecutorial immunity; this Court in a prior opinion dismissed most federal claims but retained some issues.
- On reconsideration, the district court reinstated the § 1983 claim against Wharrie for the 1985 fabrication (relying on Whitlock) and retained some state-law claims; defendants appealed claiming absolute (and qualified) immunity.
- The panel analyzed the immunity distinction between (a) investigative acts pre-charge (qualified immunity or none) and (b) prosecutorial acts during judicial phase (absolute immunity), and whether fabrication of evidence pre-charge can be the basis of a non‑immune constitutional claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wharrie is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for alleged fabrication of evidence in 1985 (pre-charge investigative act) | Wharrie fabricated evidence knowing it would be used to secure indictment and conviction; no immunity should shield that conduct | Wharrie contends investigative acts are protected under Buckley/Buckley(remand) or become prosecutorial when later used at trial | Denied absolute immunity for the 1985 fabrication; claim reinstated (fabrication pre-charge can be actionable against a prosecutor who also later participated in prosecution) |
| Whether Wharrie is entitled to qualified immunity for the 1985 fabrication | Fields: fabrication violated clearly established due‑process law and thus qualified immunity is not available | Wharrie: pre‑charge investigative fabrication did not violate clearly established rights under Buckley remand | Court held no qualified immunity for Wharrie — fabricating evidence was clearly unlawful by 1985 (distinguishing Buckley in application) |
| Whether Kelley is protected by absolute immunity for 1998 alleged procurement of false testimony during prosecution phase | Fields: Kelley coerced/induced false testimony in preparation for retrial and so is liable | Kelley: conduct was part of the judicial phase/prosecution and entitled to absolute immunity | Reversed denial as to Kelley’s 1998 state‑law claims — Kelley entitled to absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts during ongoing prosecution; district court instructed to reconsider dismissal |
| Whether Illinois law provides greater prosecutorial immunity than federal law, affecting state‑law claims | Fields: state claims should proceed under Illinois tort law | Prosecutors: Illinois affords same or greater absolute immunity | Court assumed Illinois law at least not more protective; because Wharrie lacks federal absolute immunity for 1985 fabrication, he also lacks state absolute immunity for same conduct; Kelley’s state immunity follows federal analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (constitutional claim of immunity immediately appealable)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute prosecutorial immunity for prosecutorial functions)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (absolute immunity does not cloak investigative acts; remanded questions about qualified immunity)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 20 F.3d 789 (7th Cir.) (remand decision addressing qualified immunity for pre‑charge fabrication/coercion)
- Whitlock v. Brueggemann, 682 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing fabrication from coercion and permitting pre‑charge fabrication claim)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (absolute immunity for prosecutorial actions during judicial phase)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (use of false testimony at trial violates due process)
- Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (use of perjured testimony and fabricated evidence implicates due process)