123 F. Supp. 3d 1036
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Starks spent approximately twenty years in prison for a 1986 rape and assault; DNA testing later excluded him.
- Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy among Waukegan police officers (Biang, Deprez, Juarez), Dentist Defendants (Schneider, Hagstrom), and forensic serologist Thomas-Boyd, plus City of Waukegan and NIRCL.
- Starks amended suit to include federal §1983 claims and Illinois common-law claims for malicious prosecution and IIED; a three-week jury trial was scheduled but summary judgments were pending.
- Key trial evidence involved bite-mark analysis by dentists and serology tests; DNA results eventually undermined the bite-mark and semen-source claims against Starks.
- The court granted some defendants’ summary judgments and denied others; Thomas-Boyd’s motion to declare the certificate of innocence unconstitutional was denied as moot, and the case continues on state-law claims against Waukegan officers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brady/suppress? due process claims survive | Starks asserts suppressed/fabricated evidence violated due process. | No Brady violation; evidence known or not used at trial cannot support due process claim; grand jury immunities apply to testimony. | Waukegan and Dentist Defendants granted summary judgment on federal due process; some claims survive against others |
| Whether Dentist Defendants’ bite-mark testimony violated due process | Dentists overstated bite-mark conclusions; unreliable methods violated due process. | Buie/Sornberger framework; cross-examination and context-based reliability; no intentional fabrication shown. | Dentist Defendants entitled to summary judgment on due process claim |
| Whether Thomas-Boyd’s serology testimony violated due process | Thomas-Boyd’s conclusions improperly supported the prosecution and were unreliable. | No fabrication; opinions were based on available tests; immunity for trial testimony. | Thomas-Boyd entitled to summary judgment on due process |
| Whether there is a viable §1983 conspiracy claim | Multiple defendants acted with a common plan to convict Starks. | No proven agreement; parallel actions not enough; need clear and convincing evidence of conspiracy. | Conspiracy claim dismissed against Dentist Defendants and Thomas-Boyd; Waukegan conspiracy claim forfeited on some counts |
| Whether state-law malicious-prosecution claims survive | Defendants knowingly continued prosecutions without probable cause. | Active participation required; mere testimony or flawed opinions insufficient; lack of probable-cause continuation not shown. | Waukegan defendants denied on counts; Dentist Defendants and Thomas-Boyd granted summary judgment on these claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (due process violation for suppressed exculpatory evidence)
- Whitlock v. Brueggemann, 682 F.3d 567 (7th Cir.2012) (fabrication of evidence must be used to deprive liberty to violate due process)
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497 (2012) (grand-jury witness absolute immunity; cannot circumvent immune actions)
- Buie v. McAdory, 341 F.3d 623 (7th Cir.2003) (testimony can be challenged via cross-examination; no independent due-process violation for flawed testimony)
- Alexander v. City of South Bend, 433 F.3d 550 (7th Cir.2006) (due process limits on identification procedures; must show impact on trial fairness)