09-3905 Holland v. City of Chicago

Listen to this article

Civil Rights
Due process

Where there is no evidence that police officers coerced a witness into falsely accusing the plaintiff, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendants on the plaintiff’s civil rights claim.

“A defendant in a criminal case that actually goes to trial has the ‘responsibility to probe the witnesses and investigate their versions of the relevant events.’ Carvajal v. Dominguez, 542 F.3d 561, 567 (7th Cir. 2008). Holland testified at his deposition in this civil case that he was presented to Stanley three times during the show-up and that each time he heard her say he was not her assailant. Accordingly, one would think that the first thought to pop into the mind of an attorney defending Holland would be to ask this question: What (if anything) happened between the three times Stanley said Holland was not the rapist and the time she finally said that he was? Holland’s lawyer (Tountas) actually asked that question of Stanley in an interview before the 1997 trial, and she told him that she didn’t immediately ID Holland at the show-up because she was ‘afraid.’ She didn’t tell him that any pressure, undue or otherwise, was applied to her. Even if she was lying when she said that to Attorney Tountas, there is no evidence that either officers Piekarski or Cullinan (the only defendants on the Brady claim) coerced Stanley to lie or were otherwise withholding exculpatory evidence on this point from the defense.”

Affirmed.

09-3905 Holland v. City of Chicago

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Zagel, J., Evans, J.

Full Text