United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Z. Lee, United States District Judge.
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.
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.” The Officer Defendants
properly titled their motion as one for partial summary
judgment. 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. For the reasons
provided below, each of the motions is granted in part and
denied in part.
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.
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.
The “Sleeping Deputy”
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.
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.
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.
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. ¶
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
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.
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.
24-Hour Surveillance Video from Exterior Cameras at Daley
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
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.
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.
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.
Chatman's Arrest and Detention
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,  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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.) ¶
Chatman Is Charged
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.
Anonymous Detective/Officer's Letter Regarding
Chatman's Coerced Confession
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 ...