213 F. Supp. 3d 1033
N.D. Ill.2016Background
- In November 1992 two people were murdered in Chicago. Police later arrested a group of youths; several (including Deon Patrick) signed confessions that led to convictions; Patrick served ~19 years before his conviction was vacated in 2014.
- Plaintiff alleges police officers and two Assistant State's Attorneys (ASAs) coerced and fabricated confessions, fabricated supporting reports and grand jury testimony, and suppressed exculpatory evidence (Taylor alibi, lineup reports).
- Defendants contend the arrests, confessions, grand jury indictment, and conviction resulted from routine investigation and voluntary/confessional statements; ASAs argue absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts.
- Many factual disputes exist about who was present during interrogations, whether confessions were coerced or scripted, and whether various reports (Gillespie/Grimes, Berti/Glinski, McCoy lineup) were fabricated or truthful.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment the court: denied summary judgment on most claims (coerced confession, fabrication, conspiracy, malicious prosecution), granted summary judgment for defendants on Brady (Count III), dismissed supervisory liability (Count VI) without prejudice, and granted ASA summary judgment only on the failure-to-intervene claim (Count IV) because prosecutors had no clearly established duty to intervene on these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coerced confession (Count I) — ASA Magats' liability | Magats participated in and helped craft/pressure the confession; present during coercive interrogation | Magats only memorialized a voluntary confession and was not involved in coercion; entitled to judgment | Denied summary judgment as factual disputes (over presence/participation) create jury question; prosecutorial immunity not resolved because alleged investigatory role defeats absolute immunity |
| Fabrication of evidence (Count II) | Officers/ASAs manufactured confessions and reports (McCoy lineup, Grimes/Seymore, Berti/Glinski) that caused liberty deprivation | Fabrication claim fails because much of the evidence was not introduced at trial and some issues are strategic defense choices | Denied summary judgment; court follows Seventh Circuit precedent that fabrication can violate due process when it causes deprivation (e.g., used to arrest, indict, or otherwise deprive liberty); causation is for jury |
| Brady (Count III) — failure to disclose Taylor alibi and related records | Brady material (lockup lists, officer rosters, GPRs, logbook entries) was withheld and prejudiced defense | Defense had access/knowledge (trial counsel knew of Taylor alibi and materials) so evidence was not ‘‘suppressed’’ under Brady | Granted for Defendants — trial counsel knew of Taylor alibi and could have obtained records with reasonable diligence, so no Brady violation |
| Failure to intervene (Count IV) — ASAs and officers | ASAs and officers had reason/opportunity to stop coercion and failed to act; ASAs at station could have intervened | Officers: claim timeliness/Heck issues; ASAs: absolute or qualified immunity and lack of realistic means/duty to intervene | Mixed: Denied as to Officer Defendants (timeliness and Heck arguments rejected); granted as to ASA Defendants — court finds no clearly established duty for prosecutors to intervene under these facts and no realistic means shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and materiality)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment; no rational jury)
- Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (due process/coerced interrogation principles)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (Confrontation Clause; nontestifying codefendant confessions)
- Whitlock v. Brueggemann, 682 F.3d 567 (fabrication of evidence can violate due process if used to deprive liberty)
- Fields v. Wharrie, 740 F.3d 1107 (fabrication/coerced testimony and due process framework)
- Armstrong v. Daily, 786 F.3d 529 (trial not required for due-process fabrication or destruction claims; focus on liberty deprivation)
- Saunders-El v. Rohde, 778 F.3d 556 (fabrication claims may state due-process claims separate from malicious prosecution)
- Lewis v. Mills, 677 F.3d 324 (prosecutor not absolutely immune for investigatory acts like fabricating evidence)
- Hunt v. Jaglowski, 926 F.2d 689 (contrast on prosecutor liability where prosecutor only took statement after coercion had ended)
- Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767 (conflicting sworn testimony defeats summary judgment)
- Petty v. City of Chicago, 754 F.3d 416 (elements of fabrication-of-evidence due process claim)