Chicago Police Cleared Of Any Misconduct In Jovan Mosley Lawsuit

Posted on September 23, 2009 by Avi Kamionski

United States District Court Judge David H. Coar has granted the City of Chicago's motion for summary judgment in the almost 6 year extended detention Jovan Mosley case.   Mr. Mosley was arrested and tried for the murder of Howard Thomas.  The police investigation concluded that Thomas had been beaten to death by a group of three to five black men in their late teens to mid-20s. The investigation led to the arrest and prosecution of the following persons: Frad Muhammad a/k/a Big Muhammad; Lawrence Wideman a/k/a Red; Marvin Treadwell a/k/a Leno and Marlon; and Jovan Mosley a/k/a Jason, Jovizzle, “My Guy,” and “Frad’s friend."  Mr. Mosley was acquitted by a jury in 2005.  

 

In clearing the officers of any misconduct, Judge Coar's explained: 

The results of the 7-month investigation into the Thomas murder yielded an “honest and sound suspicion” that Mosley was implicated in the crime. From the start of their investigation, the detectives knew that a group of three to five young black men were responsible for the attack, and they learned from Garth and Williams that Fetta, Marlin, and Frad Muhammad were among that group. It is undisputed that Mosley arrived at the scene with these individuals and left the scene with them immediately after the murder. 

During the February 16, 2000 interview, Williams told the detectives that five men beat Thomas during the attack, and that Mosley was one of them. The detectives had no reason to believe that Williams was not a credible eyewitness, and an identification or a report from a single, credible victim or eyewitness can provide the basis for probable cause.

In September 2006, Jovan Mosley's case was featured in  Chicago Magazine, criticizing the Cook County Justice system for allowing Mosely to sit in jail for almost 6 years awaiting trial. Laura Caldwell and Catherine O'Daniel worked on the case. However, it is now clear by the undisputed evidence presented in the federal case, Mosely agreed to all the continuances that allowed his criminal case to linger for so long.  Had he demanded trial - a right provided to every criminal defendant - he would have gotten a trial or would have been let go.

In the end - here is just one more example of the police doing their jobs - good work!!!

Christopher Wallace, Patricia Kendall and Shneur Nathan of the Corporation Counsel's Office represented the defendant Chicago Police officers.  Sean Mulroney represented the plaintiff, Jovan Mosley. 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Judge Kendall Rejects Plaintiff's "Class of One" Equal Protection Claim

Posted on September 4, 2008 by Andy Hale

 

Plaintiff was arrested on February 18, 2005 and charged with unlawful use of a weapon... According to plaintiff, "Holden, he was frightened when a male police officer pulled up behind him in a police car while he was urinating in an alley and yelled a racial epithet at him. He ran, scaled two gates, ran through a gangway and jumped onto Pulaski Avenue where he surrendered to two male police officers who arrived in a second marked police car.  Plaintiff further claims, "[o]ne of the two arresting officers grabbed Holden's leg and “snapped it in half,” making an audible noise, while Holden was lying on the sidewalk. The officer then threw him into the open door of the police car, slammed the car door against his head several times and punched his injured leg and eye.  Plaintiff claims that the officers "decided to falsely accuse him of a robbery."  The Officers deny any force and claim they "apprehended Holden and transported him to the police station."
 
At issue on Summary Judgment was "Holden's claim that he was treated differently than other individuals who have had interaction with police officers. However, at his deposition, he could not identify another person treated differently. Holden, however, suggests that some of the actions taken against him and statements made by the officers to him establish differential treatment.
 
Specifically, "Holden argues that he suffered discrimination as a “class of one” in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. He asserts that he was discriminated against because the officers abused him, did not send the allegedly recovered weapon for fingerprinting, and did not file a tactical report even though Department regulations require that weapons be fingerprinted and officers file tactical reports when they use force."
 
The Court rejected this claim and ruled: 
"To succeed on a "class of one" equal protection claim, the plaintiff must prove that: 1) he was intentionally treated differently from other individuals similarly situated; and 2) there was no rational basis for the difference in treatment or the cause of the differential treatment was “totally illegitimate animus” by the defendant." 
 
The Defense argued "that this case is ill-suited to Equal Protection analysis and that in any case, Holden has failed to adequately demonstrate that similarly situated individuals were treated differently. Generally, whether individuals are similarly situated is a question of fact for the jury, but courts may grant summary judgment when no reasonable jury could find that this requirement has been met.  To meet the similarly situated requirement, plaintiffs must prove “that they were treated differently than someone who is prima facie identical in all relevant respects.”
 
The Court held that "[s]pecific evidence of similarly situated individuals is necessary in class of one claims because individuals must be compared on a very detailed level to determine if they are in fact prima facie identical."  As such, the Court granted defendants' partial motion for summary judgment.  
 

 

Holden v. A. Carey 2008 WL 4006753 N.D.Ill.,2008 (Kendall, J).

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,