Wrongful Conviction Lawsuit Defense Blog : Wrongful Conviction Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Andrew M. Hale Law Firm

After a week long trial, a federal jury rejected Oscar Walden's claim that the police coerced his confession to rape back in 1952. Walden was arrested in January 1952 when an employee at a drug store called the police and said that he looked like the person depicted in a police sketch who was wanted for rape. Once brought to the police station, Walden was identified by the rape victim as being the man who attacked her. The next day, Walden gave a confession to police officers. Walden was convicted at his criminal trial and spent 14 years in prison before being released on parole in 1965. In 1978, then Governor James Thompson gave Walden a general pardon. Thereafter, Walden sought an "innocence" pardon on several occasions but was denied each time. However, in 2002, Governor George Ryan gave Walden an "innocence" pardon, despite the fact there was no new evidence of innocence. At the time, the rape victim and all the police officers and states attorneys involved in the 1952 criminal trial were deceased. That innocence pardon allowed Walden to file a civil lawsuit against the City of Chicago wherein Walden claimed that his confession was coerced by physical and mental mistreatment at the hands of Chicago police officers. Walden testified at his civil trial, as did his former attorney George Leighton and an expert witness named Joseph Lipari who opined that the City of Chicago had a policy and practice of coercing confessions from criminal suspects in 1952. Since the police officers, state's attorneys and rape victim were all deceased, but had been subjected to cross-examination at Walden's criminal trial, the defense used actors and presented their criminal trial testimony to the civil jury. After deliberating less than one day, the jury rejected Walden's claims and found in favor of the City of Chicago. The jury specifically found that the police officers had not coerced Walden's confession. Walden's attorneys had asked the jury to award him $15 million. The City of Chicago was represented by attorneys Andrew M. Hale and Avi Kamionski from the law firm of Andrew M. Hale & Associates. Walden was represented by Flint Taylor and John Stainthorp from the Peoples Law Office.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a 12 page opinion issued yesterday, Judge Jeffrey Cole denied plaintiff's motion to compel case files from defense expert Arthur Young.  Plaintiff sought documents in 10-15 cases in which Mr. Young conducted Absorption/Inhibition testing.  Mr. Young has opined that defendant Raymond Lenz's inconclusive findings in the Jerry Miller testing were appropriate.  Plaintiff contends that Mr. Young does not use appropriate methods in interpreting and lacks proficiency in Absorption/Inhibition testing.   Plaintiff provided no evidence to support that and their motion was rejected.  

The case is set for trial on February 22, 2010 before United States District Judge Suzanne Conlon.   

As previously reported,  the police officer defendants were dismissed from the lawsuit after Judge Conlon found that the police did not fabricate any evidence against Jerry Miller and that this was an unfortunate case of eyewitness misidentification.    

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Andrew Hale & Associates has released the following press release which has been picked up by the Chicago Tribune , ABC7 News Chicago , WBBM780 , and the Newswire

Chicago, IL - August 17, 2009 -- A federal district court judge has ruled in favor of three retired Chicago police officers who were sued by Jerry Miller in a federal civil rights lawsuit. Miller was convicted in 1982 of raping a woman at a parking garage in the Gold Coast section of Chicago.

Miller was identified by two employees who worked at the parking garage and stopped a man - later identified as Miller - as he was attempting to drive his rape victim's car out of the parking garage, with the victim locked in the trunk.

After spending 26 years in prison, Miller was released after DNA testing from the crime scene proved that Miller was not the rapist. Shortly thereafter, Miller filed a civil lawsuit, alleging that several now retired Chicago police officers had framed him for the crime by conducting a suggestive lineup and failing to disclose material exculpatory evidence.

Judge Suzanne B. Conlon rejected all of Miller's claims against the officers and granted their motion for summary judgment in its entirety finding as a matter of law that the officers did not engage in any misconduct.

The retired police officers were represented by attorneys Andrew Hale, Avi Kamionski, Ebone Liggins, and Christina Liu from the law firm of Andrew M. Hale & Associates, LLC.

About Andrew M. Hale & Associates

Andrew M. Hale & Associates specializes in the defense of civil rights lawsuits brought against municipalities and police officers. The firm's principal attorneys are Andrew M. Hale and Avi T. Kamionski. The firm maintains a blog dedicated to the defense of police officers in wrongful conviction cases: www.wrongfulconvictionlawsuitdefense.com or www.dontblamethecops.com.

For more information contact: Andrew M. Hale, 312-341-9646, ahale@ahalelaw.com, www.ahalelaw.com

*Source Andrew M. Hale & Associates - Federal Court Case no. 08 C 773

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Three retired Chicago police officers who were sued for allegedly framing plaintiff Jerry Miller received a total victory when District Court Judge Suzanne B. Conlon granted their motion for summary judgment in its entirely. Miller was convicted in 1982 of a brutal rape in the Gold Coast area of Chicago. He was convicted based on the testimony of two eyewitnesses who identified Miller as the man who attempted to drive his rape victim's car out a parking garage where they worked at the time. The parking lot attendants foiled the rapist's escape by preventing him from driving the car out of the parking garage. Miller spent 26 years in prison before being released in 2006 based on new DNA testing which showed that Miller was not the rapist. That DNA testing lead to the real culprit, Robert Weeks, who was already incarcerated for other sexual assaults. Miller subsequently brought a civil lawsuit against several retired Chicago police officers alleging that they framed him for the rape by conducting a suggestive lineup and photo array and by failing to disclose material evidence. In a 26-page opinion, Judge Conlon rejected all of Miller's claims and held that the Officers were entitled to summary judgment. Judge Conlon stated "The police officers are entitled to summary judgment on Count I for [Section] 1983 denial of a fair trial because Miller presents no genuine issue of material fact that the lineup and photo array were unduly suggestive or tainted his trial. He presents no genuine issue of material fact that evidence about the photo array was suppressed or material. And he presents no evidence of a conspiracy. The police officers are entitled to summary judgment on Miller's substantive due process claim because it is not legally viable, and Miller presents no genuine issue of material fact that the police officers fabricated evidence. Summary judgment is granted to the police officers on Count V for malicious prosecution because the undisputed facts demonstrate probable cause to arrest and prosecute Miller. Summary judgment is granted to the police officers on Count VI for IIED because Miller presents no genuine issue of material fact that the police officers fabricated evidence." The court's ruling confirmed what the defense attorneys had been stating all along - that this was an unfortunate case of eyewitness misidentification - not police misconduct. The police officers were represented by Andrew Hale, Avi Kamionski, Ebone Liggins, and Christina Liu from the firm of Andrew M. Hale & Associates, LLC. Plaintiff Jerry Miller was represented by John Stainthorp from the Peoples  Law Office and Nick Brustin, Peter Neufeld, and Barry Scheck from the Innocence Project.

Here is the opinion

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link