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
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. 