Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chatman v. Cirty of Chicago

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

March 28, 2018

CARL CHATMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, Chicago Police Detectives JOHN ROBERTS, THOMAS MCGREAL, MARIA PENA, JACK BOOCK, RITA MISCHKA, BARBARA MIDONA, AND KRISTON KATO, Chicago Police Sergeants DENNIS WALSH and BRYAN HOLY, Chicago Police Officers MICHAEL KARCZEWSKI and RICHARD GRIFFIN, Cook County Sheriff's Deputies MICHAEL COKELEY and BURROUGH CARTRETTE, Sheriff's Deputy Sergeant MARIA MOKSTAD, Assistant State's Attorney BRIAN HOLMES, UNKNOWN CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS, UNKNOWN COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES, THE COUNTY OF COOK, THOMAS DART, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Cook County, ANITA ALVAREZ, in her official capacity as Cook County State's Attorney, SUSAN RIGGIO, KAREN WOJTCZAK, former Office of Professional Standards Investigator, MILLICENT WILLIS, former Acting Chief Administrator of the Office of Professional Standards, and LORI LIGHTFOOT and TISA MORRIS, former Chief Administrators of the Office of Professional Standards, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          John Z. Lee, United States District Judge.

         After spending over a decade in prison for sexual assault, Plaintiff Carl Chatman was declared innocent, and his conviction was vacated. Based on his false conviction, Chatman has sued the individuals and entities he believes violated his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as federal and state laws. He alleges that certain Defendants coerced and fabricated his confession, manufactured evidence, failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights, failed to intervene to prevent the deprivation of his constitutional rights, maliciously prosecuted him, and intentionally inflicted on him emotional distress.

         Defendants generally fall within four categories: “the Sheriff Defendants, ” “the Officer Defendants, ” “the State's Attorney's Office (SAO) Defendants, ” and “the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) Defendants.”[1] The Officer Defendants properly titled their motion as one for partial summary judgment.[2] Each other category of Defendants has titled their motion as one for summary judgment. But because every motion omits one or more counts, the Court construes each as a motion for partial summary judgment.[3] For the reasons provided below, each of the motions is granted in part and denied in part.

         Factual Background[4]

         I. The Incident

         On Friday, May 24, 2002, Susan Riggio arrived to work between 6:45 and 7:00 a.m. at the Circuit Court of Cook County in the Daley Center. Pl.'s Ex. 31, Riggio Dep. (Riggio Dep.) at 128:19-21. It was the Friday before Memorial Day weekend, and the judge for whom she worked was out of town, and her co-worker, Jeannette Neibauer, typically arrived at 7:30 a.m. Def. Officers' Ex. 6, Midona Dep. (Midona Dep.) at 182:19-20; Def. Officers' Ex. 19, Neibauer Dep. (Neibauer Dep.) at 16:21-17:1, 33:12-16.

         Riggio claims that at 7:20 a.m., while she was alone in her office in room number 2101, a man attacked her, beat her head against a table, and sexually assaulted her. Riggio Dep. at 158:8-181:23. According to Riggio, with the door to her office open, she screamed loudly for help at least three times during the attack and picked up a chair and hit the assailant with it. Riggio Dep. at 168:14-169:7, 173:16-21; Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (Sheriff Defs.) ¶ 15.

         II. The “Sleeping Deputy”

         When Neibauer arrived for work, she saw Riggio lying on her desk and heard Riggio crying and mumbling. Def. Officers' Ex. 19, Neibauer Dep. at 40:2-24. Neibauer then walked down the hall to co-worker Pearl Bryant's office to alert her that something had happened. Neibauer Dep. at 40:3-11, 41:22-42:7; Pl.'s Ex. 5, Floor Diagram. On the way to Bryant's office, Neibauer saw a sheriff's deputy asleep with his feet on a desk in a room located nearby, The SAO Defendants' motion omits Counts III, IV (Exculpatory Evidence based on 24-Hour Surveillance Tape), and VIII, and the OPS Defendants' motion omits Count VIII. See generally Defs.' Mems. Law Supp. Mots. Summ. J., ECF Nos. 459, 462, 465, 479 (failing to address these counts or a portion of the counts). which she thought was odd. Neibauer Dep. at 40:3-11, 41:22-42:7; Pl.'s Ex. 5, Floor Diagram. When Neibauer reached Bryant's office, Neibauer told Bryant that something had happened to Riggio and asked Bryant to come with her. Def. Officers' Ex. 21, Bryant Dep. (Bryant Dep.) at 63:8-14. When they entered Riggio's office, Bryant saw that Riggio was still lying on the desk, and Bryant told Neibauer to call the Sheriff's department to send someone to the 21st floor. Bryant Dep. at 63:23-64:18; Neibauer Dep. at 43:1-10.

         Cook County Sheriff's Deputy Michael Cokeley and Cook County Sheriff's Deputy Sergeant Maria Mokstad responded to the call and took the judges' elevator to a non-public hallway on the 21st floor. Def. Officers' Ex. 16, Mokstad Dep. (Mokstad Dep.) at 33:16-22, 37:16-38:4. As Mokstad walked down the hallway, the first person she saw was Cook County Sheriff's Deputy Michael Copeland (who is not a defendant) in room 2103A, which is located near Riggio's office. Id. at 39:12-40:20. Mokstad called via internal radio for Cook County Sheriff's Deputy Lieutenant Burrough Cartrette to come to the 21st floor. See Officers Defs.' Ex. 17, 12/17/14 Cartrette Dep. (Cartrette Dep.) at 132:11-23. Cartrette arrived shortly thereafter, and, according to Cartrette, Mokstad told him at that time that she had seen Copeland sleeping in 2103A. See Cartrette Dep. at 88:1-88:5; 133:14; Pl.'s Ex. 5 (21st Floor Diagram); Sheriff Defs.' Ex. 29, Copeland Disciplinary Report at Plaintiff 005144. Mokstad, however, denies that she saw Copeland sleeping or that she told Cartrette she had seen Copeland sleeping. Mokstad Dep. at 64:6-65:1. Prior to being sued in the instant case, Cokely was not aware that Copeland was on the 21st floor that morning. Sheriff Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 55.

         Cokely, Mokstad, and Cartrette then interviewed Riggio and others and asked Riggio for a description of the assailant, whom she briefly described as a black male wearing a red Blackhawks jacket. Id. ¶ 30. Riggio stated that she recognized her assailant because she, Neibauer, and co-worker Virginia Cernick had briefly interacted with him on a previous occasion at the Daley Center when he was looking for a psychiatrist and the Social Security Administration office. See Def.'s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶¶ 15-16; Officer Defs.' Ex. 20, Cernick Dep. at 27:22-30:18; id. Ex. 19, Neibauer Dep. at 24:7-25:5. The man had been wearing a Blackhawks jacket at the time. Sheriff Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 14.

         Cartrette then called Sheriff's Deputy Sergeant Rodriguez (also not a defendant here), gave him the description of the suspect, and instructed him to initiate a search of the building in case the suspect was still inside. Id. ¶ 33. Meanwhile, Cokely searched the 21st floor. Id. ¶ 37. The Sheriff's deputies guarded the 21st floor until CPD officers arrived at the scene. Id. ¶ 38.

         CPD Sergeant Bryan Holy then arrived, along with CPD detectives. Id. ¶ 39. Holy was responsible for assigning detectives to the investigation, and he remained at the crime scene while detectives conducted interviews of potential witnesses and lab technicians processed the scene for evidence. Id.

         After the CPD detectives arrived, Neibauer stated, and Defendants dispute, that she told Detective Maria Pena that she had seen Copeland sleeping on her way to Bryant's office to get help. Compare Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 34, and Neibauer Dep. at 49:3-49:7; 120:3-120:9, with Defs.' Joint Resp. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 34, and Officer Defs.' Ex. 3, Pena Dep. (Pena Dep.) at 98:2-6, 10-12. It is further disputed whether Charles Roe, Daley Center's Director of Security, told Pena that a custodian had also seen the deputy sleeping in the area near where the incident allegedly occurred. Pl.'s Ex. 15, Roe Dep. (Roe Dep.) at 137:19-138:13. When the disputed facts are viewed in Chatman's favor, it appears that Pena was informed of the nearby sleeping deputy by Neibauer and Roe, but Pena neither interviewed Copeland nor included the information in her General Progress Report (“GPR”). Def. Officers' Ex. 27, Pena's GPR at 9. Pena admits that if she had been told that there was a deputy who had been sleeping near the crime scene, she would have wanted to know the information that person had because it might have been pertinent to the investigation. Defs.' Joint Resp. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 28.

         In addition, Cartrette says that he interviewed Copeland to confirm that he had been sleeping nearby and then shared the information with Detective Thomas McGreal. Cartrette Dep. at 86:20-90:13; id. Ex. 2, McGreal Dep. (McGreal Dep.) at 154:12-158:17, 159. But when Cartrette and Mokstad went to the police station to provide their official statements over the course of several hours regarding their knowledge of the events on May 24, neither mentioned the sleeping deputy. Cartrette Dep. at 115:5-24; Mokstad Dep. at 64:19-21. Mokstad denies ever telling anyone about the sleeping deputy, and Cartrette later denied that he had any knowledge of the sleeping deputy. Mokstad Dep. at 64:19-21; Pl.'s Ex. 61, 1/31/07 Cartrette Dep. at 105:15-23, 107:5-7; see Cartrette Dep at 27:2-15. McGreal never told anyone about the sleeping deputy and did not include this fact in his police reports. See McGreal Dep. at 156:10- 13; Officer Defs.' Ex. 31, Case Supplemental Report at 8.

         III. 24-Hour Surveillance Video from Exterior Cameras at Daley Center

         On the day of the incident, Detective Susan Barrett (a non-defendant) was assigned to review the Daley Center's exterior surveillance videos. Pl.'s Ex. 58, Barrett Dep. (Barrett Dep.) at 32:1-5. She was assisted by Daley Center's Director of Security Roe. Id. at 59:5-13.

         The Daley Center had been closed to the public before 8:00 a.m. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 7. During that time, attorneys, court employees, and building workers could enter the building only if they had sheriff- or building-issued identification. Id. Even then, they could enter or exit only through two of the four doors on the first floor, which were guarded by a sheriff's deputy between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. Id.

         Barrett spent a few hours reviewing digital video images captured by four surveillance cameras from 6:30 to 8:20 a.m., including one fixed to the southwest corner of the building, to see if she could see a black male wearing a Blackhawks jacket. Id. ¶ 10; Barrett Dep. at 31:21- 23, 32:1-13, 59:5-13. Detective Barrett did not see anyone matching the suspect's description in the videos. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 10; Barrett Dep. at 32:15-18. Roe agreed to make a copy of the surveillance camera images for the previous 24 hours for the detectives working on the case. See Defs.' Joint Resp. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 83. Barrett then walked up to Sergeant Holy at the Daley Center, told him that the surveillance videos did not capture an individual matching the description, and handed him her GPR that stated Roe would make a copy of the surveillance video. Id. ¶ 84; Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 11.

         Lieutenant Dennis Walsh, who supervised the investigation, stated that it was the responsibility of the detectives who worked on the case to obtain the video from Roe. Id. ¶ 87. The detectives who worked on the case were John Roberts, Thomas McGreal, Maria Pena, Jack Boock, Rita Mischka, and Barbara Midona. Officer Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 3. Lieutenant Walsh also states that it was his responsibility, as well as that of Sergeant Bryan Holy, as supervisors, to ensure that the video was obtained from Roe. Defs.' Joint Resp. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 87. There is no evidence that any detective or supervisor ever obtained the video from Roe. Id. ¶ 85.

         IV. Chatman's Arrest and Detention

         Based on interviews with Riggio about her alleged assailant, the CPD transmitted a message via radio to patrol officers that there had been a sexual assault at the Daley Center. Officer Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 21. The message described the suspect as a 5'7” tall, 200-pound, 50 year-old, black male with salt-and-pepper hair, wearing a Blackhawks jacket, hat, and silver belt buckle. Id.; Pl.'s Ex. 44, Crim. Trial Tr. at Plaintiff 10186. Due to heightened media attention, it was considered a high-profile, high-pressure “heater” case. See Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 41; see also Officer Defs.' Ex. 10, Karczewski Dep. at 74:3; id. Ex. 12, Griffin Dep. (Griffin Dep.) at 54:15-55:9; id. Ex. 4, Boock Dep. (Boock Dep.) at 201:22-202:9; Pl.'s Ex. 23, Mischka Dep. at 85:18-24; id. Ex. 62 Kato Dep. at 104:7-21.

         The Officer Defendants assert that Officer Richard Griffin saw a man matching the description walking southbound on Clark Street in downtown Chicago. Officer Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 22. That man was Chatman. Id. ¶ 28. Chatman is 6'2”, was not wearing a silver belt buckle, and was not wearing a hat, despite the fact that it was raining. See Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (Officer Defs.) ¶ 22; see Griffin Dep. at 88:5-6. Furthermore, it is undisputed that Chatman had been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia and had had a long and well-documented history of experiencing symptoms of schizophrenia since 1981. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 37. Additionally, Chatman was assessed in 2003 as having an IQ of 68, which meant that his overall intellectual functioning was equal to or better than only two percent of individuals his age. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 37.

         When Officer Griffin stopped Chatman, Officer Michael Karczewski approached them. Officer Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 24. It is disputed whether Chatman appeared incoherent, confused, and delusional when the officers encountered him. Id. ¶¶ 25-27, 31-33. The officers claim that Chatman told them that he was coming from the Daley Center, but this is hotly contested. See Id. ¶ 22.

         The officers proceeded to arrest Chatman at 8:34 a.m. at 151 West Van Buren. Id. ¶ 28. They brought him to the police station at Harrison and Kedzie, handcuffed him to an iron ring on the wall of an interview room, and asked him basic questions about himself. Id. ¶¶ 30, 33; Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 43. Whenever he was in an interview room, Chatman was handcuffed to the ring, and he could not lie down because the ring was too high on the wall. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 44.

         Detectives Jack Boock and Rita Mischka interrogated Chatman for two hours in the room shortly thereafter. Boock Dep. at 96; OPS Defs.' Ex. 14, Fraction Dep. at 52:18-20. In addition, after identification lineups, [5] they interrogated him a second time for about an hour. Officer Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 49; Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 43. Although he requested a lawyer, a phone call to his mother, and his medication, his requests were denied. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶¶ 50-51.

         At around noon, Assistant State's Attorney (“ASA”) Brian Holmes, who had been assigned to the case for felony review, arrived at the Harrison and Kedzie police station, spoke to Detectives Pena, Mischka, and Barbara Midona for a rundown, and read any GPRs that were relevant and available. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (SAO Defs.) ¶ 46; Holmes Dep. at 148:6- 10, 148:24-149:12. Holmes also spoke to ASA Tracey Gleason, who shared information from her interview of Riggio, including that Riggio had claimed that she had been sexually assaulted in an office building on a previous occasion. Holmes Dep. at 163:17-20. Holmes then obtained statements from the civilian witnesses, including Neibauer, Bryant, and Cernick, as well as the sheriff witnesses, including Mokstad, Cokely, and Cartrette. Id. at 176:7-16; 188:23-189:17, 252:3-10; Cartrette Dep. at 108:23-109:9.

         After he completed the interviews, Holmes, along with Boock and Mischka, interrogated Chatman in the interview room. Boock Dep. at 96:1-4. It is disputed whether Chatman appeared incoherent, confused, and delusional during the interview and whether his ability to function was severely impacted by a significant mental health disorder and cognitive deficiencies. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (Officer Defs.) ¶¶ 25, 50-51, 60-61. To the contrary, each Officer Defendant who had prolonged interactions with Chatman attests that each was unaware that Chatman suffered from any psychological issues or cognitive deficiencies. That said, it took less than 10 minutes for intake staff member at Cook County Jail to determine that Chatman should be admitted for an indefinite period into the Mental Health Acute Care Unit, which served only one half of one percent of the jail population. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (Officer Defs.) ¶¶ 25, 50-51, 60-61; Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (SAO Defs.) ¶¶ 53-54.

         During the interrogations at the police station, Chatman never stated that he attacked Riggio, that he committed the rape, or that he was at the Daley Center on May 24, 2002. Boock Dep. at 145:17-24. By 7:45 p.m., the crime lab results indicated that Riggio's rape kit and clothing tested negative for the presence of semen. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 99. The lab was still processing Riggio's underwear. Id.; see Id. ¶ 103 (reported at 10:45 a.m. on 5/25/02 that underwear tested negative). Holmes left the police station at 8 p.m., without having approved charges against Chatman. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (SAO Defs.) ¶ 48.

         At 9:30 p.m., Chatman was taken to the lockup. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 53. At 9:55 p.m., Lieutenant Walsh brought Chatman from the lockup to a different room, stating that the reason for signing him out of lockup was an “interview.” Id. ¶ 58. At that point, Chatman had been in custody for about twelve hours without anything to eat or drink.[6] Id. ¶ 54; Boock Dep. at 133:22-134:11, 135:2-4; see Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 52; see also Officer Defs.' Ex. 1, Roberts Dep. at 116:23-117:13, 118:5-9.

         The parties dispute what occurred next. According to Chatman, a “Chinese-looking” officer-who is presumably Defendant Kriston Kato, the only officer of Asian descent on duty at the Harrison and Kedzie police station that night-entered the room, and Kato and Chatman were the only people in the room.[7] Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶¶ 59-60; Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (Officer Defs.) ¶ 55. Kato proceeded to threaten, intimidate, and abuse Chatman, who was handcuffed to the ring on the wall and could not move. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (Officer Defs.) ¶¶ 52, 79; see Defs.' Joint Resp. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 59.

         Chatman contends that Kato made the following statements to him. First Kato said, “you know you did the crime raping Susan Riggio and don't tell me that you didn't because I know you did it.” Pl.'s Ex. 3, Chatman Dep. pt. 1, at 277:19-21, 278:19-24. Kato angrily scolded him, saying, “[Y]ou know you did the crime of rape . . . and pulled her panties down, bumped her head all against the desk, ” and threatened her with scissors. Id. at 280:8-13; SAO Defs.' Ex. B, Chatman Dep. at 57:14-18. But Chatman did not agree. Pl.'s Ex. 3, Chatman Dep. pt. 1, at 280:8-13; SAO Defs.' Ex. B, Chatman Dep. at 57:14-18. Kato ordered Chatman to admit to Holmes and the others that he had raped Riggio. Pl.'s Ex. 1, Chatman Dep. pt. 2, at 17:7-9; Pl.'s Ex. 3, Chatman Dep. pt. 3, at 281:3-5. According to Chatman, “[a]fter I wouldn't say . . . what he wanted me to say as far as the lie that I did it[, ] he used physical abuse to me, ” Pl.'s Ex. 3, Chatman Dep. pt. 1, at 279:1-7, because Kato was “very angry” that Chatman wouldn't go along with what Kato was saying, id. at 280:7-282:11. He contends that Kato struck him in the head on the left side of his face. Id. at 278:4-11. After Kato struck Chatman, Chatman slumped over, his whole body went numb from the blow, and he almost fainted. Id. at 282:12-283:10. Chatman was nervous and afraid. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (Officer Defs.) ¶ 52.

         When Kato looked like he was going to strike Chatman a second time, Pl.'s Ex. 3, Chatman Dep. pt. 3, at 282:5-6, Chatman agreed that he would say he had done it, but he says he did not actually confess. Id. at 281:3-5. According to Chatman, “I stopped him because I didn't want him to beat my brains out.” Id. at 279:22-24. Kato then told Chatman everything that supposedly took place and coached him as to what he should say to Holmes and the officers when he admitted to the crime. Id. at 282:6-11, 284:5-11. Defendants deny that Kato ever spoke to Chatman. Defs.' Joint Resp. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 59.

         At 10:00 p.m., Walsh assigned Detective Roberts to the case. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (Officer Defs.) ¶ 56; Officer Defs.' Ex. 1, Roberts Dep. at 69:19-20. Defendants assert, and Chatman denies, that shortly after 10:30 p.m., Chatman confessed to Roberts. Officer Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 56; Officer Defs.' Ex. 1, Roberts Dep. at 69:19-20; 84:21-85:2; 86:11- 87:17;149:9-151:20; 153:15-154:8. Chatman states that he did not speak to anyone in the room after Kato, and that after Kato left, Chatman overheard a phone conversation during which Holmes was told to return to the station. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (Officer Defs.) ¶ 56; Pl.'s Ex. 1, Chatman Dep. pt. 2 at 18:22-19:1. It is undisputed that Roberts called Holmes at midnight. Holmes Dep. at 277:21-22. As such, viewing the record in Chatman's favor, it is reasonable to infer that Kato interrogated Chatman for approximately two hours, from 9:55 p.m. until midnight.

         The parties also dispute what occurred when Holmes returned to the police station at 1:00 a.m. on May 25, 2002. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 50. Defendants state, and Chatman contests, that he orally confessed to Holmes regarding the details of the crime. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (SAO Defs.) ¶ 53. According to Chatman, he did not confess to Holmes or anyone that night, and the officers and Holmes then forced him to go to the Daley Center against his wishes. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 66; Pl.'s Ex. 1, Chatman Dep. pt. 2 at 23:5-8. At this point, Holmes had not approved any charges against Chatman. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (SAO Defs.) ¶ 47.

         It is undisputed that, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Holmes, Roberts, Midona, and Walsh (the “Walkthrough Defendants”) took Chatman, in handcuffs and leg irons, to the Daley Center for a “walk-through” that lasted over an hour. Id. ¶ 58; Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 66. But the parties' versions of what transpired while at the Daley Center diverge. According to Defendants, Chatman led the Walkthrough Defendants to various places in the Daley Center, explaining where he had been on the morning of May 24, as well as where and how he had raped Riggio.[8] SAO Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) ¶¶ 59-62. According to Chatman, he told the Walkthrough Defendants that he was nowhere near the area but they would not listen, and the Walkthrough Defendants physically directed him where to go and coached him with non-public information as to what to say. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (SAO Defs.) ¶¶ 41, 58-62; Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 69; Pl.'s Ex. 15, Roe Dep. 140:22-24; Pl.'s Ex. 16, Note from Roe. Chatman told the Walkthrough Defendants that the “Chinese-looking” officer had beaten him and that the officer had told him what to say step by step. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (SAO Defs.) ¶ 62; Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 70; Pl.'s Ex. 1, Chatman Dep. pt. 1 at 47:3-9, 13-15; 48: 18-22; 56:6-8. According to Holmes, this was the only occasion during his entire career that he had walked a suspect through a crime scene. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶ 79.

         After departing the Daley Center and having been in custody for about 19 hours, the Walkthrough Defendants finally, for the first time, gave Chatman something to eat and drink and brought him back to the police station at Harrison and Kedzie. Id. ¶ 91. Roberts locked Chatman in an interview room, rather than the lock-up, where he could not lie down or make a phone call. Id. ¶ 93. At this time, Holmes still had not approved charges against Chatman. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (SAO Defs.) ¶ 47.

         V. Chatman Is Charged

         When Chatman awoke in the interview room on May 25, 2002, he was shown a 9-page statement of confession that Holmes had handwritten. Id. ¶¶ 104, 107. In Defendants' view, Chatman had already confessed to Holmes prior to the walk-through at the Daley Center, and Holmes had drafted the statement based solely on what Chatman had told him during that confession. Defs.' Joint Resp. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶¶ 94-128. According to Chatman, he had not previously confessed to Holmes, and the written confession was fabricated to include information that Holmes and the detectives had learned from witnesses and the forensic lab results. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶¶ 94-128. It is disputed whether it was obvious to Holmes that Chatman was unable to read or understand the statement before he signed it. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(C) Stmt. ¶¶ 106, 108-09; see Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (SAO Defs.) ¶¶ 53-54. Holmes approved the charges against Chatman on May 25, 2002. Pl.'s LR 56.1(b)(3)(B) Stmt. (SAO Defs.) ¶ 47.

         VI. Anonymous Detective/Officer's Letter Regarding Chatman's Coerced Confession

         Chatman was found guilty after a jury trial on January 29, 2004. OPS Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) ¶ 18. After Chatman's jury trial, but before he was to be sentenced on March 4, 2004, Administrative Sergeant Matthew Brown of the CPD Internal Affairs Division (also not a defendant here) received an envelope in February 2004. Id. ¶¶ 16, 22. The envelope contained three documents: (1) a memorandum, dated May 27, 2002, from an “Anonymous Officer/Detective” to “Internal Affairs” and “Office of Professional Standards/Melissa Willis”; (2) a photocopy of the front of an envelope marked “Inter-Departmental ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.