## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 1878 H AROLD H IL L, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C ORDE LI A C OP PL E S ON, per sonalr epres entat i ve of M ICHAELR O GE RS, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.

____________ Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:06- cv-06772

—A my S t. E ve, Judg e.

____________ A RG UE D O CTOBER28, 2009

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 22, 2010

____________ B efore R IPPLE, W ILLIAM S an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges. W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . Ov era de ca de afte r b eing convi cted o fse xual ass aul t a nd hom i ci de, H ar ol d H i l l was ex o ne r at ed byDNA e vi d en ce . Hi l l fi l ed su i t ag ains t th e Ci ty o fC h i c a g o , a n u mb e r o fi t s p o l i c e o ffi c e r s , a nd M i ch ae l Ro g er s, a n a ss i st an t st at e’ s at to r ne y, a l l eg i ng var i ous c onst i tuti onalvi ol ati ons, i ncl ud i ng a cl ai m that se ve ra l d et ec tiv es an d R og er s h ad co e r c e d h im to fals ely confess to the cri m es i n vi ol ati on of the F i fth A m endm ent.2 N o. 09

- 1878 Roger s fi l ed a m oti on f or sum m ar y j ud gm ent ass er ti ng tha t he was i mm un e fr o m s ui tb e c a us e o fh i s p r o s e c ut or i al st atus . The distri ctc o ur t r ej ec te d thi s ar g um en t, a nd R o g e r s a p p e a l s . B e c a u s e w e c a nn o tr e s o l v e th e i mm unity i ssue w i thout r esol ving di sputed questi ons of f act re gar ding Roger s’ s r ol e in th i s ca se, we dism i ss th e appe alf o r l ac ko fj ur i sdi ct i o n.

I . B AC KGR OUND On O cto ber14 , 19 90, Kathy M or gan was sex u allyas sa u lte d , m u rd er ed , an d leftin a n ab an d o n e d b u ild in g in Ch i cago . The bui l ding and M or gan’ s bo dy w er e then se t o n f i r e i n a n a p p a r e n ta t t e mp tt o h i d e th e c r i me s . H o mi c i de detect i ves fro m t he Chic ago Pol i ce Depar tm ent’ s Area 3 Vi o l en t Cr i m es Di vi si o n inv es ti g a t e d Mo r g a n ’ s m ur derb ut w er e unabl e t o fi nd the ass ai l ants. On M ar ch 20, 19 92, H ar ol d Hil l ( w ho w as 18 yea rs o l d at the t i m e) was a r r es te d o n un r el at ed ch ar g es . Dur i ngthe f ol l ow-up i nvest i gat i on on the unrel ate d c harg es, H i l l was tak en to A re a 3 , wh er e he m et w i th Detec ti ves K enneth Boud re au and J ohn H al l or an. Boud re au and H al l or an to ok H i l l to an inter ro gat i on roo m , w here h e w as hand cuffed to a r i ngo n the wal l

. The y b eg anque st i o ni ng Hi l l abo ut whethe r he kne w ofa ny o th erc r i m es i n the a r ea . The di sc us si o n e ve ntua l l y tur ne d to the M o r g anho m i ci de, a nd H i l l de ni ed an y i nv o l ve m en t. Accor d i ngt o Hi l l, the detect i ves beca m e ver y a ggr ess i ve and repeat edl y a ccused hi m o fco m m i ttingthe cri m e, ev en go i ng so f aras to sc re am lou d ly d ire c tly int o h is e ar th at “y ou kn ow you d id i t. ” Hil l co ntends that w hen H al l or an and Boud re auN o. 09

- 1878 3 becam e frust ra ted with h is denia l s, theyr eso rt ed to phy si ca l a tt ac k s, i nc l udi ngg r ab binghi s sh o ulders an d vi o l en tly s hakinghi m , s l appinghi m a cr o ss the f ac e, a nd pu nchinghi m i n hi s che st and ribs. H i l l c o nt en ds th at, a fte r ho ur s o fque st i o ni ng a nd phy si ca l a tt ac k s, he b ec ame de spe r at e to ap p eas e th e det ec ti ve s an d de ci ded to make up a st ory abo utho w he ha d heard that tw o m en nam ed “ Pe te” an d “Jun ior” w ere re sponsibl e forthe cri m es. H i l l state s that a fterse ver al m or e h ou rs of qu es tio n in g, th e d et ec tiv es p re se n te d h im w ith tw o p h o t og ra p h s d ep ict in g t w o m en w h om H ill d id no t r ec o g ni ze: D anYo unga nd Pe te r W i l l i ams. Hi l l mai ntains that, o ut o ffearo ffurtherabuse , he t ol d the dete ctives tha t he be li eved tha t t h e m en i n th e pictu res w ere M or gan’ s a ssa i l ants. A t som e po int, th e d etec tives called A ssistan t State’s A tto rney( “A SA”) M i chaelRoge rs to the pol i ce s tat i on t o ta k e H i l l ’ s co nfes si o n, a l th o ugh the pa r ti es di spu te the ti m i ng o fRoge rs ’ s a rr i val

. Roge rs cl ai m s that he w ent t o th e s ta ti o n a fte r Hi l l ha d a l r ea dy i m pl i ca te d hi m se l fi n the cri m es by confess i ng to the detect i ves. H i l l m ai ntai ns that he di d not co nfe ss bef or e Rog er s a rr i ved at t h e s tat i on; to the c ontr ar y, he o nl y t ol d the dete cti ves that h e w as pr epa r ed to c o nfes s, b ut di d no t co nfes s unt i l hi s m ee ting wi thRo g er s. Acco r di ngt o Hi l l, when Rog er s en te r ed th e i nter ro gat i on r oo m , H i l l change d his m i nd about confess ing an d i ns tead re a sserted his i nn ocen ce, tel ling Roge rs th at h e h ad n otbe en inv olv ed in M o r g a n ’ s s ex u al a ss au lt orm urder and that he had n o kn ow l edge o fthe cri m es. H i l l s tates tha t Ro g er s i g no r ed hi s pl ea s o fi nno ce nc e an d4 N o. 09

- 1878 be g anpr es su r i nghi m t o a d m its o m e i nv o l ve m en t i n the cri m es by re peatedl y ask i ng H i l l i f he w as “r ead y to confess . ” Ap parently frust ra ted byH i l l ’ s r efusa lt o confess , Roger s then l eft th e r oo m , atwh i ch poi nt Boudreau re en te re d an d ag ain ve rb ally an d p h ys ica lly at ta c ke d H ill. S ho rtl y the r ea fte r, Hi l l a g r ee d t o c o nfes s f o r the s ec o nd t i me , a n d R o g e r s r e t u r n e d t o th e i n t e r r o g a t i o n r o o m. H i l l sta tes that Roger s, Boud re au, and H al l or an to gether conco cted a st or y th at H i l l, Young, and W i l l i am s had co ns pi r ed to s ex ua l l y a ss au l t an d k i l l M o r g ana fte r meet i ng her at a par ty. A c c or d i ng to H i l l, Roge rs fed hi m se ver al detai l s about M or gan’ s m urder to assist in hi s wri tte n confess i on, w hi ch w as prepar ed by Roger s a nd i ni ti al ed by H i l l

. A t 1 2: 20 a. m . o n M ar c h 2 2, 19 92

— tw en ty-six hou rs afterhi s a rr est

— H i l l ag re ed to gi ve a co urt- re port ed st at ement
. Hi l l c o nt en ds th atRo g ers coa ch ed hi m dur i ng hi s st at ementb y a sk i nghi m l ea di ngques ti o ns , whi spe r i ng th e a n sw er s t o ot h er qu es tio n s u n d er h is b re at h w h en H ill “d id n ’t k n ow ce rt ain an sw er s” , an d m ou th in g t o H ill det ai l s o fthe c r i m e su cha s the c o l o r a nd ty pe o fc l o th i ng M organ w as w earing th e nigh t sh e w as m urd ered

. Roge rs ve h em en tly d en ies H ill’s c laim s a n d st at es th at h e o n ly i nter acte d with H i l l bri efl y and forthe l i m i ted purpose of ap p ro vin g t h e c rim in al c h ar ge s an d q u es tio n in g h im w h ile the cour t re port er re cor ded hi s confess i on. H i l l w as ul ti m at ely c ha r g ed wi thM o r g an ’ s se xu ala ss au l t an d m urd er. Over th e ne xtt wo da y s, de te ct i ve s ar r es te d Yo unga nd W illiam s. B ot h m en d en ied k n ow in g e ac h oth er or H ill, an d b o thi ni ti al l y de ni ed an y kno wl edg e o fo r i nv o l ve m en tN o. 09

- 1878 5 i n the M o r g ancr i m es . A cc o r di ngto the t es ti m o ny o fYo ung and W i l l i am s, thei r prot est ati ons ofi nnocence al so subj ecte d them to p hysi calabuse at the hands ofthe detect i ves ( i nc l udi ngHal l oran and Bo udr ea u, who a r r es te d a nd q u es tio n ed W illiam s). E ve n tu ally , th e d et ec tiv es w er e a b le to s ec ur e wri tt en c o nfes si o ns fr o m Yo ung

— w ho was m en tall y r et ar ded an d i nc apabl e o fr ea di ngo r wri ting a n y th i ng o th e r th a n h i s o wnn a me

— a n d Wi l l i a ms

— who ha d been i nc arc e r ated on th e d ay of M organ ’s m urd er. Yo ungwas c ha r g ed wi thM o r g an ’ s se xua l assaul t an d m urder on the basi s of hi s confess i on. Ch ar ges were never bro ught ag ai nst W ill i am s be cause the det ecti ves disc over ed ( afte r s ec ur i nga de ta i l ed co nfes si o n f r o m hi m ) tha t he had a ctual l y been i n j ai l wh en the cr i m es w er e co m m i tte d an d th er efo re co u ld n oth av e b ee n inv olv ed

. InSep te m b er 19 94 , H ill w en t t o t ria l on th e s ex u al a ss au lt an d m u r d er cha rges. T he govern m en t introd uc ed H il l’ s c on fes sio n d u rin g its c as e-in -c h ief, b u t H ill m ain ta in ed h is i nn oce nce and te sti fi ed that hi s co nfe ssi on had bee n coer ce d. The j ur y c o nv i ct ed H i l l o n b o thc o unt s, a nd he w as se n te n c ed t o life in p ris on . Ov er a d ec ad e la te r, H ill an d hi s r em ai ni ng co defe nd ant Young ( w ho had bee n c o n v i c t e d i n a s e p a r a t e t r i a l ) we r e e x o n e r a t e d a ft e r D NA te st i ngr ev ea l ed th atne i th erhad co nt r ibut ed DN A to a ny pi ec e o fe vi den ce r ec o ve r ed fr o m the c r i m e sc en e. Hi l l a nd Yo ungmove d f o r a new tr i al, a fte r whi chthe i r c o nv i ct i o ns w ere vaca ted by agreem en t w ith th e s t ate’s attorn ey’s offi ce. H i l l b r o ug ht th i s su i t ag ains t th e Ci ty o f Chi ca g o , pr es en t an d f o r m erChi ca g o ho m i ci de det ec ti ve s i nc l ud in g H al l or an and Boud re au, and A SA Roger s in J anuary20 07.6 N o. 09

- 1878

D u ring the p en d en cy of this ap p eal, R og ers d ied

. P u rsu an t to 1 Fed eral Ru le ofAp pell ate Procedu re 43( a) ( 1) , w e is sued an order s t ayi ng the appe al pe ndi ng a ppoi nt m en tofa per s ona l r epr es en tat ive f or Ro gers ’ s es tat e. The st ay w as li fted on M ay 6, 20 10 u p on ou r gr an ting of t h e p arties’ j oin t m otio n to sub stitute R ogers’ s pe rs o nal r epres entat ive, Cord el ia Co pp le son, as par t y- defen dant

. W e re feron l y t o Roge rs i n the opi ni on. H i l l as ser ted thatthe coe rci on o fhi s fa l se confess i on was a vio lat ion o f t h e Fift h A m en d m en t. H e a lso br ou gh t a civ il co ns pi r ac y c l ai m under 42 U. S

. C. § 1 98 3, a l l eg i ngtha t th e defen dan ts ha d c o ns pi r ed to c o er ce h i s co nfes si o n. The defen dan ts move d f o r s um m ar y j ud gm en t o n v ar i o us gr ounds. Fo r hi s par t, Roger s ass er ted that he was enti tl ed to ab so lu te im m u n ity be c au se h is a c tio n s w e r e t a ke n in connect i on with hi s pr ose cutor i alduti es, and al ternati vel y, th at h e w as en tit led to qu alifi e d i m m u n ity be c au se h is ac ti o ns d id no t vi o l at e H i l l ’ s co ns ti tu ti o na l r i g ht s. The di st r i ctc o urt de te r m i ne d tha t Ro g er s, Hal l o r an, a nd B o u d r e a u w e r e n o ten t it le d to su m m a r y ju d g m e n ton H ill’s Fi fth A m endm ent for ced confess i on cl ai m and hi s § 19 83 cl ai m . Roge rs now app eal s the dist ric t co urt’ s deni alo f sum m ar y j ud gm ent. 1

II. A N A L Y S IS W e b e g i n b y a ddr e s s i ngthe iss ue o fj ur i s di c t i o n. On appeal fro m a denia l o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent o n an as ser ti on of absolute or qu ali fi ed im m un ity, “w e evalu ate the record de novo and deter m i ne wh etherwe can d ec ide eac h i m m unity quest i on with ou t res ol vi ng anydi sputedN o. 09

- 1878 7 questi ons off act. I fwe fi nd thatwe cannot, then w e la ck j uris dict i on o verthe appeal o fthatquesti on. ” Hans e n v . B enne tt, 948 F.2d 397, 39 9 (7th C ir. 1 991) (citati on om itted ); see Jo hn son v. Jon es , 51 5 U. S

. 30 4, 31 9- 20 ( 19 95 ) ( “[ A] defen dant, enti tl ed to i nvoke a quali fi ed i m m unity defense, m ay nota pp e a l a di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s s ummar y j ud g men to r der i nsof aras thato rder deter m i nes w hether or not the pr etr i al record sets forth a ‘genu ine’ i ssu e of fa c t for trial

. ”). Convers el y, i fwe are ab l e t o deci de ei theri m m unity questi on ba sed o n u nd i sputed f acts , then w e do have j u ris d ict ion
. Leaf v. Shelnut t, 400 F.3d 107 0, 1078 ( 7th Cir. 2005 ) ( “[ W ] hen the outcom e ofa questi on o fl aw

— f or i ns ta nc e, w he th era pa r ti cul ara ct i o n v i o l at es the Co ns ti tu
ti on

— d oe s not depend o n the outco m e o fa disputed factu al qu estion, w e m ay review w he th er the d istri ct cou rt c o r r e c t l y de t e r mi ned the que s t i o n o fl a w tha ti tc o ns i dered

. ”). H er e, the dist ri ct c ourtd et er m i ned that Roger s was not enti tl ed t o sum m ar y j ud gm ent b ase d on pro secuto ri al i m m unity b ecause ge nuine i ssues o ff act re m ai ned a s to Ro g er s’ s i nv o l ve m en t i n the c o er ci o n o fHi l l ’ s co nfes si o n. Am o ngthe ev i den ce th e di st r i ct co ur t co ns i der ed was the disc repancy abo ut wh etherH i l l co nfe sse d to the c ri m es before or after Rog ers arrived at th e po li ce s tation, H il l’ s te st i m o ny tha t he i ni ti al l y to l d Ro g er s th at he di d no t want to co n fes s, an d H ill’s as se rt ion s t h at R og er s h ad fed h im addi ti o na l de ta i l s ab o utthe murde r to assi stHi l l dur i ng hi s co n fes si on. The di str i ct c ourtf ound that thi s e vi dence w as sufficie n t to cre ate a genui ne i ssue ofm ate ri alf act wi thr es pec t to th e ex te nt o f Ro g er s’ s per so na l i nv o l ve m en t i n the c o er ci o n o fHi l l ’ s co nfes si o n.8 N o. 09

- 1878 R og er s n ow as ks th is c o u r t to rea ss es s w h et h er h e is en ti tl ed to abs ol ute o r quali fi ed i m m unity, bo th o fwh i ch d ep en d on iss u es o f fa c t th at t h e d ist ric t c ou rth as co rre c tly deter m i ned are i n dis pute. W i th r espectto abs ol ute i m m unity, a pros ecuto r i s absolutel y i m m une fro m § 1983 ci vi l l i ab i l i tywhen he “a ct s as an adv o ca te f o r th e st at e but no t when hi s ac ts a r e i nvestigat i ve a nd un r el at ed to the prepar ati on a nd i ni ti ati on o fju d i ci alpro ceedi ngs. ” Sm ith v. P o w er, 34 6 F
. 3d 740, 74 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( ci ti ng Buckl ey v . Fi tzs i m m ons , 50 9 U.S

. 25 9, 27 3 ( 1993 ) )

. T h e quest i on o f w hetherRoge rs was acting i n the ro l e of an advocat e o r an i nvest i gat ordepend s in part on w hether probabl e ca use for H i l l ’ s a rr estexi ste d bef or e Rog er s’ s a rr i valatthe pol i ce st at ion
. See B uc k ley, 509 U
. S. at 274 ( “A pros ecuto r nei ther i s, norsho ul d c o ns i derhi m se l ft o b e, a n a dvo ca te b efo r e he ha s pr o babl e ca us e to have a nyo ne a r r es te d. ”)

. And the probab le c ause questi on turns o n a di sputed i ssue off act concerni ng H i l l ’ s co n fes sio n, wh i ch w as the o nl y pi ece of evi dence i m pli cating hi m . I fH i l l con fes sed to the cri m es bef or e Rog er s a rr ive d , then the detect i ves l i kel y di d have pr o b ab l e c a us e to ar r e s th i m, wh i c h c o un s e l s t o wa r d a fi nd i ng t h at R oge rs was acting i n a pure l y pr ose cutor i al ro l e forwh i ch he w oul d be enti tl ed to abso l ute i m m unity. On the other hand , a deter m i nati on th at H i l l di d not confess unti l hi s m eet i ng w i th Roger s w oul d i nd i cate that Roger s was l i kel y ac tin g i n the ro l e o fan invest i gat or se ar ch i ngf o r mor e ev i den ce , a ct i vi ti es t o w hi cho nl y the qu ali fi ed i m m un ity analysis app li es. A s the district cou rt f ound, w hetherR og er s a rr i ved befor e Hil l co nfe sse d i s a disputed i ssue off act that re quir es m akingcr edibi l i ty d eterm ina t io n s a n d w e ig h in gth e ev id e n c e , w h ich th e cou rtN o. 09

- 1878 9

R og ers’s con clu sory assertion th at H ill h ad con fessed p rior to 2 R ogers’ s arri val at the st ati on is m eri tl es s. R ogers contends that H ill ’s a g re em en t to c o n fes s is ta n ta m o u n t to a c o n fes sio n its el f. But thi s c ont en t i on i s no ts uppor t ed by the S u p re m e Cour tof Il li nois ’ s longst and ing defini ti on of “conf es sio n, ” w hich is “a directacknow le dg m ent ofguilto n the part of the acc used, ei ther by a s t at em en tofthe d et ai l s ofthe cr i m e or anadm i s s i on ofthe ulti m ate f act
. ” P eoplev. A l l en , 10 7 N .E .2 d 826 , 83 0 (Ill. 19 52 ) ( c iting P eo p le v. N itt i, 1 4 3 N .E . 4 4 8 , 4 5 5 (I l l . 1 9 2 4 ). H i l l ’s statem en t that h e inten d ed to con fess d id no t con tain an y d etails o f th e c ri m es , no r w a s itan ad m iss io no ft h e u l tim a te fac t. S ee al so Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Gi l b e r t so n , 435 F.3d 790, 798 ( 7th Cir

. 2006) (citi ng w ith ap p ro v al the T hird C ircu it’ s d efinition of “co nfession ” as “a statem en t ad m itting or ack no w led g ing all fac ts ne c es s ar y f or c onvi c t i on ofthe c ri m e”) ( c i t i ng G o v ’t o f Virg in Is la n d s v . Ha rr is , 93 8 F .2d 401, 40 9 n
. 5 ( 3d Ci r. 19 91 ) )

. W i thout m or e, H ill’ s statem e n t that h e w ou ld con fess is insufficient to c re at e pro bable c aus e, an d ac c or di ngl y, c ann otbe the bas i s f or finding thatRo gers w as act ing as an adv ocate rather than an in v es tig a to r d u ri n g h is m ee tin g w ith H ill

. coul d not do on s um m ar y j ud gm ent. Because w e ca nnot r es o l ve the abs o l ut e i m m uni tyque st i o n wi th o utr es o l ving th is f actu al d ispu te, w e d o not h ave j urisd iction over H il l’ s appeal o fthati ssue. 2 Roger s’ s qualifi ed i m m unity c l ai m al so depend s o n disputed i ssues o ffact

. A p ro secuto r i s enti tl ed to quali fi ed im m u n ity if h is or h er “a c ti o n s d i d n otvio lat e c lea rly es tabl i sh ed st atut o r y o r c ons ti tu ti o na l r i g ht s o fwhi cha re aso nabl e per so n w oul d have know n. ” Viilo v. E yre, 54 7 F. 3d 707, 709 (7th Cir

. 20 08) ( ci tat i on a nd i nter nal quotat i on m arks om itted ). I n ess en ce, Rogers’s argu m en t is th at th ere10 N o. 09

- 1878

w as no l egi ti m ate bas i s fora fi nd i ng tha t R oge rs co er ced H i l l ; thus, H i l l was not dep riv ed ofa const i tuti onalr i ght. B ut this argum en t fac e s the sam e prob lem as Roge rs’s appeal bas ed on abso l ute i m m unity in that i ts re sol uti on d ep en d s o n fac ts th at th e d ist ric t c ou rth as p ro p er ly d eterm ined to b e i n d ispu te: th e ext en t to w hich Roge rs wa s i n v o l v e d i nc o e r c in gHi l l ’ s c o n fe s s i o n . An d b e c a u s e we cannot deter m i ne wh etherRoge rs co e r c e d Hi l l ’ s c o nfess i on wi th o utr es o l vingthe di sc r epa nc ies b etwee n Hi l l ’ s an d Roger s’ s a ccounts of the ev ents, we l ack j uri sdic ti on t o co ns i derRo g er s’ s qua l i fi ed i m m uni tyc l ai m o n int er l o cuto ry ap p ea l. Se eW

hi t ev. Ge r ar dot, 509 F.3d 829, 835 (7th C ir. 20 0 7 ) ( “ W e do no t ha v e j ur i s di c t i o n whe n, a s he r e , a l l o f th e ar gu m en ts made bythe pa r tys ee k i ngt o i nv o k e o ur j u r i s d i c t i o n a r e d e p e n d e n tu p o n, a n d i n s e p a r ab l e fr o m, d isp u te d fac ts .”); Via v. La Gran d, 469 F.3d 618 , 624 ( 7th Cir. 2006 ) (“[U ]nd er Johns on and i ts prog eny, thi s co urt l acks interlocu tory j urisd iction to review the record to det erm ine whethe r the di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n fi ndi ngtha t a g en ui ne issue of m aterial fact ex ists. ”).

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Because we l ack j uri sdic ti on, the appeal i s D IS MIS S ED .

11- 22- 10