## 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

- 3598 J OVAN M OSLE Y, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. T HE C ITY OF C HI CAGO, a muni ci palc o r po r at i o n, and C hi cago Pol i ce Offi cer s C LARE NCE H IL L, D ERAIL E AST ER, C HA RLES W I L L I A MS, AN D E DWARD H O W ARD , J R ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06- c- 6314

—David H. Coar, Judge .
A RGUED M AY 25, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 29, 2010

Befo re F LA UM, R OV NERa nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. F LA UM, C ircu itJudg e . T hi s i s ana ppea l fr o m a g r an t o fs um m ar y judgmenti n f av o r o fthe de f en dan ts i n a § 1 983 acti on that a ro se f ro m the ar re st and prose cuti on o fpl aint if f- appe l l an t J o va n Mos l ey . M o sl eywas a t th e scene w hen a grou p ofi nd i vi du al s be at H oward Thom as2 N o. 09

- 3598 to de ath i n 1 99 9. M o sl eya rri ved atthe s ce ne wi ththe g r o up tha t at ta ck ed Tho m as a nd l eft th e sc en e wi ththe sam e group . M osley and three oth er i nd ivi d ua ls w ere c h ar ge d w ith T h om as ’s m u rd er . A f t er ap p ro x im at ely five ye ar s in j ail, M os ley w as ac q u itt ed attria l. Sh or tly th ereafter he fil ed this suit. M osley’s § 1983 claim cen ters ar o un d the allegation tha t the i nv estigating offi cers wi thh e l d e v i de nc e o fa n e xc ul pa tor y s t a t e men tma de b y t h e k ey e ye w itn es s d u rin g t h e lin e-u p w h en th is w i tness i denti fi ed M osl ey. W e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct co ur t th atthe r ec o r d do es no t su ppo r t M osl ey ’ s due proce ss vi ol ati on c laim o r any o fhi s r el ate d stat e l aw c l a i ms . We a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und A . The Pro secut i on ofM osl ey i n the Thom as M urder Shortly after m idn ight on A ug us t 6, 1999 , H ow ard Thom as w as beat en to d eath near73 30 So uth Cal um et A venue i n Chica go. Tw o tee nage i nd i vi du al s, J or i Garth and A nton W i l l i am s, witnes sed the att ack. T hat e veni ng, Gar th a nd W i l l i ams we r e si tt i ngo n Ga r th ’ s f r o ntpo r ch

. Fr ad M u h am m ad , L aw re n c e W id em an , M ar vin T re ad w ell, J o van M o sl eya nd Gr eg o r y Re ed appr o ac he d the po r ch

. Gar thkne w Tr ea dw ell and Re ed so ci al l y . Re ed, who h a d b e e n d r i n k i n g h e a v i l y, j o i n e d G a r th a n d Wi l l i a ms on the por c h w hi l e the o ther s s tay ed at f oo t o fthe sta i rs . W hi l e th e g ro up was t al k i ng, Tho m as wal k ed bya nd som eone i n the gr oup sai d, “ther e g o the m othe rfucker r i g htthe r e. ” T he g r o up s ta ndi nga t th e ba se o fthe sta i rs r an atThom as. There i s s om e t est i m ony that ReedN o. 09

- 3598 3 i ni ti al l y ra n outand qui ck l y ra n ba ckto the po r ch

. Ev en tu
al l y, the b eati nge nde d a nd M uha m m ad, W i deman, Tr ea dwel l, a nd M osl eya l l wal k ed o fft o g ethe r, l ea ving Thom as i n a pool of hi s own bl oo d. The p olic e arr i ved s h o r t l y th e r e a ft e r . G a r th a n d Wi l l i a ms d i d n o tc o me f or w ar d as witnesse s r i ght a w ay. T h e p olic e in te rv iew ed G ar th an d W i l l iam s a b ou t s ix m o nths a fte r the a tt ac k

. Ga r tht o l d the po l i ce abo utthe gr ou p co m in g t o h er p or c h to ta lk w ith h er an d W ill i am s. S he sa i d that s hor tl y into the c onver sat i on Thom as wal k ed byand thr ee ofthe mem be r s o fthe g r o up r ana nd att acke d him

. S he sa i d that a ta l l, l i ght- ski nned, bl ack m an wa s th e o n e wi th th e b a s e b a l l b a ta n d th e ot he r t wo i ndi vi dual s ha d b r ai ded hai r . None o fthe se de sc r i pti o ns fi t M o sl ey . M o sl eydo es no t al l eg e th atthe p oli ce wi th

hel d G ar th’ s s tat em ent. W illiam s a lso g a v e a st at em en t t o t h e p olic e. H e t old th e o ffi c e r s th a tfi v e i n d i v i d u a l s c a me t o th e p o r c h

. He re cogni zed Reed, Tre adw el l, and M uham m ad. H e d i d not re cogni ze the o thertwo i nd i vid u als. Offi cer s Charl es W i l l i am s, Cl ar ence H i l l, and Ed w ar d H oward, J r. te sti fi ed th atAnto n W i l l i ams t o l d the m tha t ev ery o ne i n the gr oup except Ree d atta cked Thom as. A fterW i l l i am s g ave hi s s tat em ent, the offi cer s a sse m bl ed a l i ne- up with M osl ey. W i l l i am s i denti fi ed M osl ey as havi ng been o n the sce n e o fThom as’ s m urder. The o ffi cer s di d not cr eat e a r epor t t o docum ent th e line- up atthatti m e. Fi ftee n m on th s la te r, D et ec tiv e H ill d oc u m en te d th e l i n e - u p in vague and g en eralte rm s. The r epor t doe s no t s ay p re c ise ly w h at role M os ley p lay ed in t h e at ta c k, b u t it d id4 N o. 09

- 3598 i ndi ca te tha t W i l l i ams i den ti fi ed M osl eya s be i ng i nv o l v e d i n the mur de r i n s o me f a s hi o n. Th i s r e portwas tu rn ed ov er to M o s l e y ’ s a tt or n ey be for e t ria l. A t h is depo si ti o n i n th i s ca se , W i l l i ams i ndi ca te d that the re po r t was a f ai r r epr es en ta ti o n o fthe r es ul ts o fthe l i ne - up . I n a d d i t i o n t o g i v i n gh i s i n i t i a l s t a t e me n ta n d i d e ntifying M osley i n th e line -up , W il lia m s te stifi ed before th e g r an d j ur y a nd a t M o sl ey’s t r i al

. Be f o r e th e g r an d j ury W i l l i am s g ave the fol l owing tes ti m ony: Q : A fte r yo u h ea rd so m eb od y s a y t h at, w h at d id y o u s ee the n? A: T h e y s t a r t e d b e a t i n go n h i m. Q: W hen yo u saythey, wh o speci fi cal l y di d you s ee? A: F r a d, Mar v i n, R e d. Q : A n d d id you se e w h er e t h e fo u rt h bla c k m ale who y o u de sc r ibe d to th e G r an d J ur y, wher e di d he g o a s th o s e th r e e p e o p l e w e r e b e a t i n go n th e v i c t i m? A: Idi dn’ t se e hi m b ea t hi m , b uthe was a r o und the a re a. Q: Did you s ee hi m wh er e the thr ee peopl e that y o u kn e w we r e b e a t i n go n th e v i c t i m? A : Yes. Q: A nd was he down i n that ar ea? A : Yes. A t t r i a l, W i l l i a ms g a v e di r e c t t e s t i mon y c o ns i s t e ntwith hi s g ra nd j ury tes ti m ony. T hen, o n cr oss - exam i nati onN o. 09

- 3598 5 W i l l i am s a gr eed with a stat em ent b y defense counsel that one coul d i nter pret as m aki ng M osl ey l ess cul pabl e: Q: [ M o sl eyi s] the pe r so n y o u i den ti fi ed as ha ving been out ther e but n ot havi ng d one anythi ng, co rr ect? A : Cor re ct. Q : Y o u ne ve r a t an y t i m e to l d the po l i ce o ffi cers th at J ova n M osl ey did hi t o r str i ke orki ck M r . Tho m as , di d y o u? A : N o. N o. W i ll i ams t es ti fi ed i n h i s depo si ti o n tha t he t o l d the offi cer s that fi ve m en , i ncl ud i ng M osl ey, at tack ed T h om as . W illiam s a lso te st if i e d th at h e c on sis te n tly tol d the o ffi cer s that M osl ey w as part of t h e g ro up that ra n to w ar d Th om as but thathe di d not s ee M osl ey thro w any pu nches. Other than agr eei ng w ith defense c o u n s e l ’ s s t a t e me n to n c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i o n, Wi l l i a ms n ev er cla im ed to h av e d efin itiv ely se en M os ley ab st ain f ro m part i ci pati on i n the att ack. Th e de t e c t i v e s a l s o t o o k a s t a t e men t f r o m R e ed. Reed i m pli cate d al l f our defe nd ants i n the att ack

. I n the sta tem en t, R ee d c l a im ed th at M os ley h it T h om as a c ou p le of t im es . In d isc u ss in g t h at st a t e m en t d u rin g h is d ep os iti o n i n th i s ca se , Re ed st at ed th at he ha d no i nde pen den t re col l ecti on o fwh at happ ened but pro vi ded the sta tem ent base d on wh at he had hear d fr om o theri nd i vi du al s. R eed clai m ed that he told the offi cers o f t h at fact before h e g av e t h e s ta te m en t, bu t h e d id n otac kn ow led ge h is l ack of per sonalr eco l l ecti on i n hi s s tat em ent. Reed ga ve d ep os itio n te st im on y t h at th e o ffice rs d id n otte ll him6 N o. 09

- 3598

w hat t o sayi n hi s s tat em ent. On the e ve oftr i al, Reed to l d the pr o se cut o r, Andr ew Va r g a, tha t he was dr unk on the ni ght of the i nci dent and did not have any ind epend ent r eco l l ecti on o fthe eve nt. A t th at ti m e, Varg a d eci ded not to cal l Reed as a w i tness at tr i al . Th er e is no i nfo rm ati on i n the re cor d r ega rdi ng w heth er V ar ga ev e r info rm ed M os ley ’s d efe n se at to rn ey ab ou t t h is disc ove ry . A l l o fM osl ey’ s co - defe nd ants al so im pli cate M osl ey i n the beat i ng i n so m e f ashi on. M uham m ad sa i d that M o sl eywas pa r t ofthe g r o up tha t at ta ck ed Tho m as , b ut did notsa y wha t M os ley did i n the beat i ng. W i dem an sa i d tha t M o sl eywas pa r t o fthe e ar l i erdi sc us si o ns w hen the gr oup pla nned to r ob and beat som eone . W i deman al so sa i d th at M o sl ey was pr es en t atthe sc en e ofthe beat i ng and l eft with the gr ou p afterthe beat i ng. T re ad w ell d id n otim p lica te d M os ley by n am e, bu t d id sa y tha t F r ad’ s f r i en d w as th e fi fthmem be r o fthe gr ou p and w as one ofthe m en wh o hi t Thom as. M osl ey al so g av e a st at ementi m pl i ca ting hi m se l f

. Thr o ug ho ut hi s br i ef s, M osl ey chara cter i zes hi s s tatem ent a s “ a s tat em ent g i ven a ftertwenty- ei ght ho urs ofbeing handcuffed to a wal l i n a n i nt er r o g at i o n r oom . ” H o wev er, the m anner i n w hi ch thatst ate m ent was o btained i s no t chal l enged i n thi s l aw sui t. M osl e y ’ s t r i a l wa s o r i g i na l l y s c he du l e d fo r Apr i l 2 0 0 0. H o wev er, b y a g r ee m en t o fthe pa r ti es , the c o urt c o ntinued the t ri alunti l N ove m ber20 05. M osl ey re m ai ned in th e m ax im u m -se c u rit y w in g of t h e C oo k C o u n t y Jail w hi l e a w ai ti ng tr i al

. I n N ove m ber20 05, M osl ey w asN o. 09

- 3598 7 acqui tte d by a j ury. W i dem an, T re adw el l, and M uham m ad w ere con victed of fi rst-d egree m urd er.

B . P roc ed u ral H is tory M osl ey fi l ed thi s ca se aga i n st t he Ci ty ofChica go, Clar ence H ill, M aver i ck Por ter, Dera i l Easte r, Charl es W i l l i am s, and Ed w ar d H oward, J r. A l l o fthe i nd i vi du al defen dan ts a r e C hi ca g o Po l i ce De par tmento ffi ce r s who w ere involved i n th e investigation of th e Th om as m urder

. The i ni ti al co m pl aint co nt aine d th e fo l l o wi ng cl ai m s: C ount I

— th e defen dan ts v i o l at ed M o sl ey ’ s due proce ss ri ghts by w i thhol ding excul pator y e vi den ce an d fab ric at in g fa lse rep or ts ; C ou n t II

— the defen d an ts f a l s e l y im p r i s o n e d M o s l e y ; C o u n t II I

— defe nd ants vi ol ate d M osl ey’ s r i ght t o equa l pro tect i on o fthe l aw s; C ou n t IV

— defe n d an ts conspi re d to depri ve M osl ey of hi s co nsti tuti onalr i ghts; Count V

— the defendants subj ec te d M o sl eyt o mal i ci o us pr o se cut i o n; Co untVI

— th e d efe n d an ts en ga ge d in a ci v i l co n sp ira c y; C ou n t V II

— th e defendants subj ecte d M osl ey to i ntenti onali nfl i cti on o f em ot ion al d ist re ss ; C ou n t V III

— defendant City o f C hicag o i s bou nd by the doc trine of resp ond eat su p erior; an d C ou n t IX

— defe nd ant Ci ty ofChica go i s o bl i gat ed to i nd em ni fy the Chic ago Pol i ce Offi cerdefendants. Defe nd ants m ove d to dism i ss al l of t he cl ai m s. M osl ey vo l unt ar i l y di sm iss ed th e cl ai m s f o r f al se i m pr i so nm ent, vi ol ati on of eq ual pro tect i on, and conspi ra cy to depri ve M osl ey ofhi s c onsti tuti onalr i ghts. The di str i ct cour t denie d the m oti on to dism i ss on al l other counts. Di sc o ve r y en su ed. Pr i o r to th e cl o se o f di sc o ve r y, de fen-8 N o. 09

- 3598 dan ts fi l ed f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t o n th e r emai ni ng c o u n t s . D i s c o v e r y c o n t i n u e d wh i l e th e mo t i o n f o r s u mm ar y j ud gm ent wa s p en ding. A t the cl ose o fdi sco ver y, th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d d e f e n d a nt s ’ mo t i o n f o r s u mm ar y j ud gm ent o n al l r em ai ni ng co unts. The di str i ct cour t f ound that the defe nd ants did not viol ate M osl ey’ s due pro cess r i ghts because any f ai l ure to d isclose excu lpato ry eviden ce d id n o t ri se th e level of a Bradyviol ation. Th e d istri ct cou rt gra n t e d sum m ary j ud gm ent o n the m ali ci ous pr ose cuti on cl ai m bec ause i t f ound that there w as pro babl e ca use t o proce ed w i th th e pr ose cuti on. The di str i ct c ourtf ound that without a va l i d c l ai m f o r the due pr o ce ss v i o l ation o r the mal i ci o us pr osecut i o n, the c i vi l c o ns pi r ac y c l ai m c o ul d no t st an d be ca us e th er e was no l eg al l y co g ni zabl e i nj ur y . The di s t r i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d s u mma r y j u d g me n to n th e i n t e nti o na l i nfl i ct i o n o fe m o ti o na l di st r es s cl ai m b ec au se the statu te of li m itat io ns had run . Fi na ll y, th e d istri ct cou rt foun d that the claim s again s t t he City of Ch icago w ere i na ppl i cabl e be ca us e M o sl eydi d notputf o r war d a ny val i d cl ai m s a gai nst the i nd i vi du alo ffi c er s. M osl ey now appe al s th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s g r an t o fs um m ar y j udg m en t on the co unts f ord eni alo fdue proc ess , m al i ci ous pr osecuti on, and civil co nspir acy. H e a l so ask s us to r e i n s t a t e th e c l a i ms a g a i n s tth e C i t y o fC h i ca g o i fwe r eins ta te a ny o fthe c la i m s ag ains t th e i ndi vi dualde f en dants.

I I . Discussi on W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t d e n ov o. Barr i cks v . E ly L i l l y & Co. , 48 1 F
. 3d 556, 55 9N o. 09

- 3598 9

M os l ey c ont en ds thatthe di s t ri c tc our te rr ed by f or m u l at i ng 1 the tes t f o r su m m ary j ud gm ent as “a party s eeking s um m ary j udgm en tha s the b u rd en ofs howi ng thatthe re ar e no ge nuine i ss ues ofm ater ial f actthatw ould p revent j ud gm ent as a m atter of law .” M osley claim s t ha t by f or m u lating the test in thi s m ann er, the di s t ri c tc our ti m pro per l y i nt er m i ngl ed the ana l ys i s ofthe r ec or d f ac t s with the l eg al t es t s f or p reva i l i ng as a m at t er ofl aw. Ti ed t o thi s c laim , M osley ar gue s thatthe d istrict co u r t d id no t vie w the facts in the ligh t m ost fav or ab le t o M os l ey whengr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm en t
. Thi s ar gum en t i s w i t h o u tme r i t
. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i d n o td i s r e g a r d the pro per s t anda rd o fr evi ew f or s um m ar y j udgm en t

— i tc on s i dere d wh e the r the r e c or d p r e s e nt e d a ny i s s ue s o fm a ter ial f ac twith r eg ar d t o the lega l i s s ues pr es en t ed. The re was no conflat ion or confusi on of f act s and the l aw . Furtherm ore, as defen dant s poi ntout, we r evi ew a c l ai m f or s um m ar y j udgm ent de nov o , a n d the ref ore we review the re cord and l egal i s s u e s a n e w. ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. S um m ar y ju dgmenti s pr o peri f“ th e pl ea di ng s, de po si ti o ns , a ns wer s to i nt er r o g at o r ies, a nd adm i ssi ons on file, t oge therwith the affi davi ts, i fany, show that there i s no ge nuine i ssue as to any m ate ri al f act and that the m ovi ng par ty i s e nti tl ed to judgm ent a s a m at te r o fl aw . ” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 5 6( c)
. I fthe moving 1 part y m eet s thi s bur den, the non- m ovi ng par ty m ust su b m it e vid en c e t h at th er e is a ge n u in e is s u e f o r tr ial. Fe d . R. C iv. P . 56(e ); Ptas znikv . S t. Jos eph H os p. , 46 4 F
. 3d 691, 69 4 ( 7th C ir. 2 006)
. The exi ste nce o fm er el y a sc i nt i l l a o fe vi den ce in suppo r t o fthe no n- m o ving p ar ty’ s pos i ti on i s i nsuffi ci ent; ther e m ust be ev i dence o n which th e j ur y c o ul d r ea so nabl y fi nd f o r the n on -m ov in g p ar ty
. P tasznik, 46 4 F
. 3d at 694.10 N o. 09

- 3598 A . Brady V iolat ion C laim T he m ain issue in th is app eal i s w he th er th e officers viol ated t h eir d ut y un d er Brady v . M aryl and, 37 3 U.S
. 83 ( 1963 ) , to turn o veral l excu l pator y e vi dence and ther eby v i o l a t e d Mo s l e y ’ s d u e p r o c e s s r i g ht s . Mo s l e y c l a i ms W i l l i am s tol d the offi cer s that he re cogni zed M osl ey f ro m the g roup ofi nd i vi du al s who beatThom as to d ea th bu t t h at W illiam s s aw th at M os ley d i d n otp ar tic ipate in the beat i ng. M osl ey i nsi nuates that ther e w as an o r i g i na l l i ne - up r e po r tc r e a t e d tha tc o nt a i ne d that sta teme nta nd the o ffi c e r s de s t r o y e d the r e po r tt o k eep i t fro m M osl ey ’s a tto rney . I n the al ter nati ve, M osl ey claim s tha t the officers did no t create th e line -up report f orfifte en m onths to hi de the f act that W i l l i am s s aw th atM o sl eydi d no t partic i pat e i n the b ea ting . Addi ti o nal l y, M osl ey cl ai m s that the o ffi cer s com m itted a Brady vi ol ati on bynoti nfo rm i ng M osl ey’ s a tto rn ey that Reed wa s t o o dr un k t o ha v e a ny i nd e pe nd e nt r e c o l l e cti on o f the ni ght. W e be gi n o u r anal ysi s bydeter m i ni ng wh at M osl ey w oul d need to show to preva i l o n a Bradydue proc ess v i o l a t i o n c l a i m. A Bradyvi ol ati on o ccurs w hen the gov er n m en t fa ils to d isc los e e vid en c e m at er ially fav or ab le to th e a c c u se d

. Young blood v. Wes t Virginia , 54 7 U.S
. 86 7, 869 ( 2006 ) . The Bradyduty e xt en ds to i m pea ch m en t ev id en c e a s w el l a s e x c u lp at or y e vid en c e. Id. at87 0. A defe nd ant m ay dem onst ra te that a Brady vi ol ati on has o c c ur r e d b y “ s ho wi ngtha tthe f a v o r a b l e e v i dence coul d rea sonab l y b e ta ke n to put the w hol e ca se i n such a d ifferent li gh t as to un d erm in e c o n fi d en ce in th e ver-N o. 09

- 3598 11 dict

. ” Kyles v . W

hit ley, 5 1 4 U .S . 419 , 435 (19 95 ). In gr an t i ngs ummar y j ud g men t, the di s t r i c tc o ur ti de nt i fi ed the l ogi calte ns ion i nherenti n cl ai m i ng a Bradyvi ol ati on o ccurr ed w hen the predi cate tr i alr esulted i n an acqui tta l

— e x c l u p a t o r y e v i d e n c e c o mi n g t o l i g h t a ft er t he tr ial w ou ld rea ffirm , no t u n d er m in e, th e c on fid en c e in a no t guil ty ver dict

. Sev er alo fo ur s i ste r ci rcui ts have he l d tha t th e st an dar d s eto uti n Kyles i nd i cates that a tr i althatr esul ts i n an ac quit talcan n ev er l ead to a val i d c l ai m f ora Bradyvio l ati on be cause the t ri alpro du ced a fa ir re su lt, ev en w ith ou t th e e x c u lp at or y e vid en c e. See M organ v. G er tz , 16 6 F .3d 13 07, 13 10 ( 10th Cir
. 19 99) ( “Reg ar d l ess o fany m i sco nd uct bygo ver nm ent a gents bef or e o r du ri ng tr i al, a defe nd ant who i s a cquit ted cannot b e sa i d to have been depri ved ofthe ri ght t o a fair tria l.”); Flore s v. Satz , 1 3 7 F
. 3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 1 9 9 8 ) ( fi nd i ng no Bradyvi ol ati on i n the f ace ofan ac quit talbec ause Brady pr o t e c t s a de f e nd a nt f r o m an unfairtr i aland an ac quit ted defendant does not suff er th e e ffec ts of an u n fair tria l); M cCun ev. C ity of Gr and Rapi ds , 84 2 F
. 2d 903, 90 7 ( 6th Ci r. 19 88) ( hold in g that wher e c r i mi n a l c h a r g e s a r e d r o p p e d b e f o r e t r i a l, a nd th u s t h e u n d er lyin g c r im in al p ro c ee d in g t er m in at ed in an appel l ant’ s f avo r, there is n o i nj ury caused bythe act of s u p p re ss in g e x c u lp at or y e vid en c e). But s e eHauptv. D i lla rd, 1 7F
. 3 d 2 8 5 , 2 8 7

- 8 8 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) ( ho l di ngthat whe r e the t r i a l j ud g e wa s b i a s e d, de f e nd a nt ’ s a c qu i t t al speaks o nl y t o the am ount o fdam age s due and i s i rr el evant to w hetherhe ha s a cause o f a c tio n f ora vi ol ati on of h is d u e p r o c e ss righ t t o a fair t ria l). O u r c irc u it ha s not d ire c t ly res olved w he th er a plaintiffcan assert12 N o. 09

- 3598 a cl ai m f ora Bradyvio lat ion w h en th e t r i a l r es u lte d in an a c q u i tt al. W e w er e re c en tly co n fro n te d w ith th is i ss ue i n Bie l ans kiv. County of Kane, 55 0 F. 3d 632, 64 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )
. Ho we v e r, we d i d n o td i r e c t l y a d d r e s s t he qu e s ti on be c a us e we f o un d tha te v e n i fwe r e c o g ni z e d a cause ofac tion f ora Bradyvi ol ati on wh en the tr i alr esul ts in an ac q u itt al, th e p l a i n tiff in Bie l ans kiwould st i l l have f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m. I n c o mi n gt o th a t co nc l u s i o n, we se t as i de th e issu e o fwhethe r s ucha c l ai m c o ul d po te nti al l y e xi st. W e hel d that t o sta te a Bra dy vi ol ati on cl ai m wh en the cr i m i nal tr i ale n d ed in a cquit tal, i fsuch a cl ai m exi sts , the pla i nti ffwould need to sho w that “the deci si on t o go to tr i alwould have been a ltered by the desi re d discl osur e. ” Bie l ans ki, 5 50 F. 3d a t 6 45 ( ci ting Carv aj al v. D o m i n g uez , 542 F.3d 561 , 570 (7th C ir. 2008)). Fo ll owing Bie l ans ki, we n o w a s k wh e th e r th e r e i s an y ev i den ce i n the r ec o rd tha t woul d s ho w: ( 1) tha t th e offi cer s w i thhel d m ate ri al l y f avo rabl e evi denc e from M osl ey, and ( 2) had t h e offi cer s di scl ose d that e vi dence so on er , i t w ou ld h av e a lte re d th e d ec isio n to go t o t ria l. In othe r w or ds, M osl ey m u st sho w thati fal l part i es had known of som e pie ce of excul patory evi dence, the p ro secuti on would nothave m ove d fo rward w i th char ges , th e g r an d j ur y woul d no t ha ve i ndi cted M o sl ey, o r the tr ial c o ur t woul d ha ve g r an te d a mot i o n t o di smi ss the i ndi c t me n t
. B e c a u s e Mo s l e y c a n n o tme e tth i s b a r, we re ser ve the quest i on o fwh ethero ur ci rcui t recogni zes a c l a i m fo r a Bradyvi ol ati on wh en the tr i alr esul ts i n an acqui tta l f ora l ate r case wh en thi s s tandard i s m et. T he re i s no evid en ce in the record th at th e officers w i thheld any m ate ri al l y f avo rabl e pi ece ofev i dence.N o. 09

- 3598 13 M osl ey conte nd s that du rin g the l i neup identi fi cati on of hi m , W i l l i am s tol d the offi cer s that he saw M osl ey d uring the att ac k a n d he saw that M osley did not p arti ci pate in the beat i ng; thatthe offi cer s withhel d that i nfo rm ati on; and that thi s with h ol ding am ounts to a Br adyv i o l at i o n. M o sl eydo es no t co nt en d tha t the o ff ice r s wi thhe l d W i l l i ams’ s i ni ti als ta te m en t to the pol i ce o r hi s g ra nd j ury te stim ony that he sa w M osl ey i n the ar ea ofi nci dent but di d not s ee M os ley part i ci pate i n the a t t a c k

. Mo s l e y s t r e s s e s the di s t i nc t i o n b e t ween no t se eings o m eo ne pa r ti ci pat e i n a c r i m e an d s ee i ng som eone n ot part i ci pate in the cri m e. Even i fthi s di sti nctio n i s m eani ngful, M osl ey’ s cl ai m f ai l s because ther e is n o ev id ence that W i l l i am s t ol d the o ffi cer s that he saw M osley not p articipate in th e beatin g tha t led to Th om as’s death. To s u p p ort hi s cl ai m , M osl ey poi nts o ur a tte nti on to the c ro ss- exam i nati on a t tri alwh er e W i l l i am s r epl i ed “y es ” to the de f en se c o uns el ’ s st at ement : “ [M osl eyi s] the perso n yo u i denti fi ed as h av i ng be en o ut ther e but not havi ng done a nythi ng, co rr ect? ” W e agr ee w i th the di str i ct co ur t tha t W i l l i ams’ s o ne wor d a ns wer t o tha t l ea di ng qu estion m us t be interp reted i n li gh t o f allof W il li am s’s testim ony . Th is i s not an i m p erm issible cred ibi lit y d eterm i na ti o n. I t i s a ne ce ss ar y i nt er pr et i ve s te p to g i ve a ny m eani ng to that pie ce of tes ti m ony. I n eve ry situati on w here W il l i am s a rt i cul ate d w hat he tol d the pol i ce officers

— hi s g ra nd j ury tes ti m ony, hi s di re ct e xam i nati on te st im on y a t t ria l, an d h is d ep os itio n te st im o n y in t h is case

— W illiam s con sisten tly sai d that he told the offi cers th athe s aw M o sl eyw ith th e g r o up tha t co m m i tt ed th e at ta ckb utdi d no t se e o r c o ul d no t r emembers ee i ng14 N o. 09

- 3598 M osl ey parti ci pate. In li ght o fthe f act that he has consi ste n tly te st ified , b ot h b efo re a n d a fte r th e tr ial, th at h e t old th e o ffi ce r s th atM o sley w as inthe a r ea o fthe a tt ac kb ut tha th e di d n o tkno w o r di d n o ts e e i f M o s l e y p a r t i c i pa t e d, th e one word answer o n cr oss - exam i nati on ca nnot cr eat e a g en u in e i ssue ofm ate ri alf act on thi s i ssue. M osl ey al so po i nt s to the fi fte en - m o nth del ay i n th e cr ea ti o n o fa l i ne up r epo r t as ev i den ce th at th e o ffi ce r s wer e i nt en ti o na l l y wi th

ho l di ngi nf o r m at i o n. W hi l e fi fteen m o nths i s anunu su al l y l ong d el ayf o r the c r ea ti o n o fa r epo r t, the r e i s no ev i den ce tha t th e del aywas the r es ul t o fa ny th i ng othe r than an ove rs i ght. Even i f w e w er e to deter m i ne that W i l l i am s’s agre em ent o n cr oss - exam i nati on creat es an i ssue ofm ate ri al fact as to w he th er o r not W il li am s ever told th e officers th at h e s aw M os ley n otp ar tic ip at e i n t h e be at in g, th is w i thhol ding w oul d not r i se to the l eve l o fa Brady vi ol ati o n un d er the s ta nda r d we s etf o r thi n B ie lanski because i t would nothave al ter ed the pros ecuti on’ s deci si on t o go to tr i al

. The pro secuto r tes ti fi ed at hi s deposi ti on that he m ove d fo rward aga i nst M osl ey on a n acco untabi l i ty theo ryo fm urder. To purs e the acc ountabili ty theo ryo f m urder, the sta te d id notneed t o show that M osl ey acti vel y par ti ci pated i n the b ea ting. I nstea d, the s tat e needed to show that M osl ey, w i th the i ntent to prom ote o r f aci l i tat e the at tack, so l i ci ted, ai de d , a b ett ed, ag re ed or at te m pte d t o a i d, o th er s i n th e at ta ck

. 2 1 Tr ac y Ba te m an& Su sa n L . Th om as , Il l
. La w and Prac
. Hom i ci de § 9 (2010). W i l l i am s’ s a l l ege d st at em ent woul d not hav e chang ed the v i abi l i ty ofthi s theor y o fcr i m i nal l i abi l i ty f or M osl ey. Taki ng M osl ey’ s m ost f avo rabl e f or m ula ti on o fN o. 09

- 3598 15 W i l l i ams’ s te st i m o ny, W i l l i am s sa w M o sl eywi ththe g r o up who c ar r i ed o utthe a tt ac ka nd s aw M o sl ey i n the ar ea of th e a t t a c k. W id em an st at ed th at M os ley p ar tic ipat ed i n e ar l i erdi sc us si o ns pl an nin g t o a tt ac k, b ea t, a nd r o b ani ndi vi dual

. Af te r the a tt ac k, M o sl eyl eft wi ththe gr oup of perpetr ato rs . This evi dence w oul d ha ve bee n suffi ci ent fort h e p ro secuto r to pu rs ue the acco untabi l i ty th e o r y o fmu r d e r u n d e r I l l i n o i s l a w. M o s l e y a l s o c o nt e nd s tha tthe o ffi c e r s c o mm i t t e d a Brady vi ol ati on b y w i thhol ding the e vi dence thatReed w as “drunk as hel l ” o n the ni gh t of th e inci dent and had no i nd ependent re col l ecti on o fthe i nci dent. M osl ey arg u es th at th is i s im p each m en t evide nc e and therefore Bradym at er ial th at sh ou ld h av e b ee n d i s c los ed . Th is ar gum ent f ai l s be cause the s tat e did n ot cal l Reed attr i al and ther ef or e t h e sta te had no ob l i gat i on t o turn o ver evi den ce tha t co ul d i m pea chhi s te st i m o ny . F ur th er m or e, the pros ecuti on di d decide to m ove forw ard w i th th e tr i alev en afterl ear ni ng thi s f act. There f or e, ev en ass um i ng tha t a Bra dy v iola ti on co uld o ccur w hen a tr i al ends i n acqui tta l, this cl ai m cannotr i se to the l eve l desc r ibe d i n Bie l ans ki

.
B. M alicious P rosecu ti on Claim Inord er to p re va il on a m alic iou s p ro se c u tio n cla im u n d e r I l l i n o i s l a w, th e p l a i n t i ffmu s tp r o v e : ( 1 ) th e c o mm encem ent o r conti nuance ofj ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs b y th e d efe n d an t a ga in st th e p lain tiff; (2) a lac k of p ro b ab le ca us e f o r thos e pr o ce eding s; ( 3) mal i ce i n i ns ti tu ting th e p ro c ee d in gs ; (4) te rm in at ion of th e p ro c ee d in gs in16 N o. 09

- 3598 th e pl aint i ff’ s f av o r ; a nd ( 5) d amag es r es ul tingt o the pla i nti ff

. The di str i ct courtconcl ud ed that the defendants had probabl e ca use t o press f or w ar d w i th the pro secuti on and th er efor e M osl ey coul d not m ai ntai n a c l ai m f or m alici ous pr ose cuti on. Probabl e ca use i s defi ned as “ a state off a cts th at w ou ld lead a person of ord inary cauti on a nd prudence to bel i eve , or to ente rt ai n an honestand str ong suspi cion , that the per son ar re ste d com m i tte d the o ff ense charg ed. ” R eynolds v. M enard, Inc. , 850 N
. E
. 2d 831, 837 (I ll

. A p p . Ct
. 2006). M osley erroneou sly cl aim s tha t the district cou rt i m perm i ssibl y wei ghed the cre dibi l i ty of th e witnesse s i n deter m i ni ng tha t the o ffi cer s had pro babl e ca use. W e l o o kt o the t o ta l i tyo fthe c i r cumst an ce s when co nsi deri ng w hether the offi cer s had pr obab l e cause to ar re st and i ni ti ate pro ceedi ngs a gai nst a defendant. Illin o is v. G a tes , 46 2 U.S
. 21 3, 23 1 (1983)
. I n fi nd i ng tha t the o ffi cer s had pro babl e ca use, the d istr i ct c ourtr el i ed on the te sti m ony ofthe offi cer s a nd W i l l i am s that W i l liam s t ol d the o ffi cer s M osl ey w as i n the gr oup that atta c k e d T hom as an d Ree d ’s statem en t to the offi cers th at h e h ea rd M os ley h ad be en a p ar t o f th e a t t a c k. A lthough Ree d’s hear sayst ate m ents w ou l d not hav e been a d m issibl e a t t ri al, theycan sti l l se rv e a s a bas i s f or probabl e ca use when consi dered with the othe r evi dence. S e e Eb e r t v. Ga etz , ___ F. 3d ___, 20 10 W L 25087 71 ( 7th Cir
. , J une 23, 20 10) ( “pro bable cause to ar re st can r est u p on in for m at ion th at w ou ld n ot b e ad m iss ible at t ria l, such as hear say, i fth e in f or m ati on i s s up port ed by so m e i ndi ci a o fr el i ab i l i ty
. ”)
. I n a ddi ti o n t o Re ed an d W i l l i ams’ s st at ement s, the offi ce r s al so a ct ed o n theN o. 09

- 3598 17 st at em en ts of M u h am m ad , W i d em an , an d T re ad w ell, all of w hi ch i m pli cate d M osl ey. W hi l e M osl ey i s corr ec t to ar gue that th e te stim ony ofco nfe derat es i s no t a l w ays the m ostcr edibl e in fro nt o fa j u ry, i t ce rt ai nl y c an be cre dit ed i n f or m i ng the bas i s f orpro babl e ca use.
C . Civil Con sp ir acy C laim L as tly , M os ley cla im s t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in gr anti ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n hi s ci vi l co nspir acy cl ai m . To s h ow a ci vi l co nspir acy, M osl ey m ust s how an ag re em ent t o acco m pli sh ei ther an unlawful purpose or a la w fu l p u rp os e b y u n law fu l m ea n s. M cCl urev. O wen s Corn i ng Fi b e rglass Corp
. , 720 N
. E
. 2d 242, 258 (I ll

. 1999). Mo s l e y mu s ts h o w th ate a c h o fth e d e f e n d a n t s “ k n o wi n g l y a n d v o l u n t a r i l y pa r t i c i p a t e d i n a c o mmo n s c h e me to com m i t a n unla w ful act or a l aw ful act i n an unlawfulm anner . ” Id. P ro of of a c c id en t o r n eg lige n c e is n oten ou gh

. Id. M osl ey does not poi nt to any evi dence ofa com m on s chem e. I nstea d, M osl ey poi nts t o al l ega ti ons he m ade i n hi s co m pla i nt. Thi s i s not the pr oper st an d ar d for s u m m a r y ju d gm en t. A t t h is s ta ge , M os ley is re q u ire d to off ersupport f ortho se al l ega ti ons. I n pla ce ofev i dence, M osl ey p oi nts t o the absence o fr epor ts f ro m hi s i nter ro gat i on a nd t h e line- up . H e i s co rr ect that th is in d ica te s a n ov er sig h t b y t h e p olic e o f f i c e r s in thi s case. H owever, witho ut m or e, thi s o m i ssi on does not am ount t o evi dence o f co nspir acy to obt ai n an unlawfulr esul t o r to obt ain a l aw ful re sul t thro ugh unlawfulm eans.18 N o. 09

- 3598 I I I . Concl usio n For the r eas ons setf or th abo ve, we A FFIRM the distr i ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent o n al l cl ai m s.

7- 29- 10