Nathson Fields v. Lawrence Wharrie
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3953
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Nathson Fields was convicted of two murders in 1986 and later exonerated after a retrial, and he now seeks damages from Cook County officials including ASAs Wharrie and Kelley.
- Fields alleges Wharrie solicited false testimony from Hawkins and suppressed its falsity, and Kelley coerced Langston’s false testimony and used it at retrial.
- Fields asserted due process violations (false testimony, suppression of exculpatory material) and state-law claims (malicious prosecution, IIED, conspiracy) against multiple defendants.
- The district court denied absolute immunity to Wharrie and Kelley in part and held it had supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed in part: Wharrie is absolutely immune for soliciting false testimony and suppression; Kelley’s claim of coercion is not actionable against him; the district court may relinquish or retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- The case was remanded to determine whether to retain jurisdiction or dismiss state-law claims without prejudice, given the immunity rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of prosecutorial immunity for Wharrie | Wharrie acted prosecutorially by soliciting false testimony. | Wharrie’s post-charging actions fall outside immunity when not on the trial team. | Wharrie is absolutely immune for soliciting and suppressing falsity. |
| Kelley’s immunity for coercing Langston’s testimony | Kelley coerced Langston prior to retrial affecting Fields’ rights. | Kelley’s involvement was during trial; coercion was tied to retrial use. | Fields failed to state a claim against Kelley for coercion independent of its use at retrial. |
| Continuing Brady/Giglio duties persistency | Brady/Giglio duties continued after initial trial and through retrial. | Brady/Giglio duties are limited to ongoing judicial proceedings and are tied to the prosecutor’s role. | Brady/Giglio duties persist through direct appeal and retrial, constraining immunity analysis. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | District court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. | Illinois sovereign immunity may bar federal jurisdiction over those claims. | District court has jurisdiction; remand to determine whether to retain or relinquish supplemental jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court 1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutorial duties)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (Supreme Court 2009) (supervisors/colleagues may have absolute immunity for disclosure duties)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court 1993) (distinguishes between in-court and out-of-court fabrications and immunity)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court 1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (Supreme Court 1972) (Brady duties extend to witnesses' information known by others acting for government)
- Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court 1976) (defendant's due process rights to exculpatory evidence)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (Supreme Court 1985) (appellate process as integral to criminal justice)
- Osborne (District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 129 S. Ct. 2308 (Supreme Court 2009) (direct review/finality considerations and postconviction relief)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (Supreme Court 1995) (prosecutor's duty to ensure fair trials; materiality of evidence)