Terrance Thompson v. City of Chicago
722 F.3d 963
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Thompson was convicted in 2003 of unlawfully possessing a firearm based solely on testimony from Chicago Police Special Operations Section (SOS) officers Suchocki and McDermott; he served over three years in prison.
- In 2006–2007 a Cook County investigation revealed widespread SOS corruption; the State’s Attorney conceded the officers were not credible, vacated Thompson’s conviction, and dismissed the case.
- Thompson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City and officers (Suchocki, McDermott, Burzinski) asserting Brady-based due-process claims (failure to disclose impeachment evidence, conspiracy to violate Brady, and failure to intervene) and a malicious-prosecution claim; the City stipulated to judgment if liability were found against any officer.
- At trial many SOS officers invoked the Fifth Amendment; Thompson sought an adverse-inference instruction and wanted to introduce testimony from citizen victims and guilty-plea statements of implicated SOS officers to prove a pattern of misconduct and withheld impeachment material; the district court excluded several citizen witnesses and all guilty-plea testimony under Rule 403.
- The jury found only Suchocki liable on the basic Brady claim and awarded $15,000; Thompson lost other claims and against the other officers; he appealed, arguing multiple evidentiary errors and improper defense conduct; the Seventh Circuit found cumulative error and reversed for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Thompson's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of citizen witnesses under Rule 403 | Witnesses were highly probative of an SOS pattern of fabricating evidence and therefore of impeachment evidence the officers withheld (Brady) | Evidence would be unfairly prejudicial, tangential, temporally remote, or produce mini-trials | Court abused discretion; exclusion unduly limited proof of pattern and was reversible in context of cumulative errors |
| Exclusion of nonparty SOS officers’ guilty-plea testimony | Guilty-plea statements were highly probative corroboration of pattern/conspiracy and necessary given many witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment | Admission would be unfairly prejudicial; jurors might convict defendants for others’ conduct and plaintiffs couldn’t cross-examine | Court abused discretion (or at least should have reconsidered when other corroboration proved thin); exclusion reversible in context |
| Admission of detailed alias questioning (implying arrest history) | Detailed cross-examination on 12 “important events” amounted to backdoor admission of arrest history and unfairly prejudiced jury against Thompson | The phrasing avoided direct reference to arrests and complied with district court’s protective approach | Court abused discretion in permitting the repetitive alias questioning; it undermined the arrest-record exclusion and was prejudicial |
| Elicitation/misstatement about Suchocki indictment and dismissal's indicia of innocence | Defense improperly elicited the fact of Suchocki’s indictment (contrary to pretrial order) and mischaracterized ASA testimony to imply the dismissal was not indicative of Thompson’s innocence | Defense argued the indictment showed dismissal was due to officer indictment, not plaintiff innocence; any references were benign or cured by rulings | Admission of the indictment (without context) and misstatement were improper and, in combination with other errors, prejudicial; contributed to reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (due-process duty to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence)
- Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Brady standards and materiality)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (impeachment evidence under Brady/Giglio)
- Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (adverse inference from witness silence in civil cases)
- Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (Fifth Amendment and adverse inference parameters)
- LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387 (7th Cir.) (adverse-inference limits in civil litigation)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (probative value vs. unfair prejudice analysis under Rule 403)