IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DEMETRIUS JOHNSON,

 

Plaintiff,

v.

REYNALDO GUEVARA, the ESTATE of 

ERNEST HALVERSON, DARRYL DALEY, 

WILLIAM ERICKSON, JOHN HEALY, and 

the CITY OF CHICAGO

Defendants.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 20 cv 4156 

Judge Sara L. Ellis 

Magistrate Judge Heather K. McShain

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 

The Parties submit their Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (JSOF), relative to 

Defendant Officers’ Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff:

I. Jurisdiction and Venue

1. This matter is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Illinois law. This Court 

has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, and supplemental 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. Venue is proper under 

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 1 - Defendants Daley and Yanow’s Answer 

to Plaintiff’s Complaint and Affirmative Defenses, Dkt. #70, p 5, ¶ 13-15.)

II. The Parties

2. Plaintiff Demetrius Johnson was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of the 1991 

murder of Edwin Fred. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 1 - Defendants Daley and Yanow’s 

Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and Affirmative Defenses, Dkt. #70, pp. 1−2, ¶ 1, 4.)

3. In June 1991, Defendants Reynaldo Guevara, Daryl Daley, William Erickson 

(deceased), and Ernest Halvorsen (deceased) were employed by the City of Chicago’s Police 

Department. In July 1991 Defendant John Healy was a sergeant in Area 5. (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 1 - Defendants Daley and Yanow’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and 

Affirmative Defenses, Dkt. #70, pp. 6, ¶ 17; Ex. 2 - Chicago Police Records RD File at RFCJohnson 40, 62, 72, and 76 (Sgt. Healy’s signature on reports).)

4. Geri Lynn Yanow, Special Representative for Ernest Halvorsen, deceased,

William Erickson, deceased, and John Healy, deceased is named as a Defendant in her capacity 

as Special Representative of the deceased, as successor in interest to defend this action on their

behalf. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 1 - Defendants Daley and Yanow’s Answer to Plaintiff’s 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 1 of 25 PageID #:15020
2 

Complaint and Affirmative Defenses, Dkt. #70, p. 7, ¶ 19; Ex. 3 - Order Appointing Special 

Rep., Dkt. #48.)

5. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation duly incorporated under the 

laws of the State of Illinois and was the employer of the Individual Defendants. (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 1 - Defendants Daley and Yanow’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and 

Affirmative Defenses, Dkt. #70, p. 7, ¶ 20.)

III. The June 12, 1991 Shooting of Edwin Fred and Raul Ortiz

6. At approximately 7:45 p.m. on the Wednesday evening of June 12, 1991, a single 

gunman opened fire near the intersection of Claremont and North Avenue in Chicago where 

Edwin Fred, Raul Ortiz, and Forrest Garnett were standing. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 4 – 

Appellate Order in Johnson’s Criminal Case at Johnson 921-922; Ex. 2 – Guevara 6/13/91 

Supp Report at RFC-Johnson 50-52 (noting gunman came up to Fred, Ortiz, and Garnett 

on intersection and started shooting); Ex. 5 – Criminal Trial Transcript (Raul Ortiz) at 

JGS_JOHNSON 27-31 (A16:3-20:3) (at approximately a quarter to 8:00 p.m., Raul Ortiz 

was coming out of his house and was shot in the right shoulder and then he heard a few 

more shots).)

7. The gunman shot at Fred, Ortiz, Garnett with a handgun, striking Fred with 

numerous bullets and hitting Ortiz once in the right shoulder. After the shooting, the gunman fled 

south on Claremont. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 2 – Guevara 6/13/91 Supp Report at RFCJohnson 50 (noting that the gunman struck Fred numerous times and Ortiz in right 

shoulder and then fled southbound on Claremont); id. at 52 (Ortiz told Guevara he 

observed a person running southbound on Claremont).)

8. Fred died from his wounds. Ortiz survived and went to St. Elizabeth’s Hospital

before returning to the scene. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 2 – General Offense Case Report at

RFC-Johnson 39 (Fred taken to hospital and pronounced deceased) (Ortiz went to hospital 

and was released); Ex. 2 – Guevara 6/13/91 Supp Report at RFC-Johnson 50 (Ortiz 

returned to scene after treatment at hospital).)

IV. Police Investigation 

a) June 12, 1991 

9. Chicago police Officers Hernandez and Johnson responded to the scene and 

conducted an initial canvas identifying four initial witnesses (Aby Gonzalez, Stanley Jewel, Fina 

Martinez, and Omar Ortiz). (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 2 – General Offense Case Report at 

RFC-Johnson 38-39.)

10. Defendant Guevara was assigned to investigate the case and, at the scene, 

interviewed Raul Ortiz (victim), Forrest Garnett, and Aby Gonzalez. Ortiz relayed that while 

exiting his building (2333 W. North Ave.) he heard a gunshot, felt pain in his shoulder and then 

observed a person running southbound on Claremont and had no other information. Garnett 

stated that he was with Fred (victim) in front of 2337 W. North Ave. when he saw a male black 

shoot Fred. Gonzalez relayed that he was standing on the southeast corner of North Ave. and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 2 of 25 PageID #:15021
2

Claremont when he saw a male black run toward him. The person stopped and pulled a gun and 

pointed it at him, then stood there for several seconds, and then ran toward Fred and shot Fred 

and Ortiz. The gunman put the gun in his waistband and then ran past Gonzalez a second time, 

going southbound on Claremont and then westbound on LeMoyne. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 

5 – Criminal Trial Transcript (Guevara) at JGS_JOHNSON 210 (B35:13-21) (“Q. At any 

time were you assigned to investigate the shooting of Edwin Fred? A. Yes, I was. Q. On 

what date were you so assigned? A. I was the investigating detective on the scene. Q. What 

does that mean? A. That means as soon as the shooting goes down, I was there.”); id. at 

JGS_JOHNSON 214, 216 (B39:9-14, 41:7-23); Ex. 2 – Guevara 6/13/91 Supp Report at 

RFC-Johnson 50, 52 (summaries of Ortiz Garnett and Gonzalez interviews).)

11. Officer Darryl Daley also responded to the shooting. Initial flash messages sent 

out minutes after the shooting indicated that the shooter was a “male Black,” with the name 

“Little D” or “Bryan Johnson.” The messages included that the second offender was a male

Hispanic. Daley, who knew Bryan Johns to match the description, go by the nickname “Little 

D,” and to be a member of the Maniac Latin Disciples street gang, immediately suspected Johns

committed the shooting. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 6 – Daley Deposition at 78:8-81:4; 90:20-

22; Ex. 7 – Daley 6/13/91 Supp Report at RFC-Johnson 34; Ex. 2 – General Case Report at

RFC-Johnson 38-39 (second offender was male Hispanic); Ex. 2 – Guevara 6/13/91 Supp

Report at RFC-Johnson 52 (“The RD then learned that...a person [was taken] into custody 

in connection with this shooting one Bryan JOHNS, also known as “LITTLE D” a member 

of the MANIAC LATIN DISCIPLES street gang. It was further learned that several people 

who live in the area ...had said that the shooter was a member of the Maniac Latin 

Disciples and used the street name of “Little D”.”).)

12. Daley had seen Johns approximately an hour before the shooting at 2632 W. 

Wabansia, and drove to that location. Officer Daley saw Johns exiting a van with two male 

Hispanics. He detained Johns. Daley observed two of the individuals that were in the van with 

Johns enter the vestibule of a two flat house before police could apprehend them, providing an 

opportunity to drop off a weapon. They were not arrested until after they exited the building. The 

van was checked and a weapon was found, and no warrant was ever sought to search any part of 

the apartment building. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 6 – Daley Deposition at 80:22-84:14, 

185:5-187:1, 195:19-24, 196:10-13; Ex. 7 - Daley 6/13/91 Supp Report at RFC-Johnson 34-

35 (Daley heard on broadcast that attacker was Lil D and went to 2632 W. Wabansia, 

where he had last seen Bryan Johns); Ex. 5 – Criminal Trial Transcript (Daley) at 

JGS_JOHNSON 198 (B23:4-13) (“Q. Did you go to Talman and Wabansia to look for 

anyone in particular? A. Yes. Q. Who were you looking for? A. I was looking for a person 

by the name of Brian Johns. Q. Did you know Brian Johns to have a nickname? A. Yes. Q. 

What was his nickname? A. Little D.”); Ex. 2 – RFC-Johnson 84.)

13. The same night of the shooting, Officer Daley took Johns to Area 5. Johns was 

placed in a lineup viewed by some of the eyewitnesses. Officer Daley was not involved in the 

line-up process. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 6 – Daley Deposition at 130:20-131:5; 200:13-

201:6; Ex. 7 – Daley 6/13/91 Supp Report at RFC-Johnson 34 (Johns put in lineup); Ex. 7 – 

Six-witness lineup Report at RFC-Johnson 26-27; Ex. 5 – Criminal Trial Transcript 

(Daley) at JGS_JOHNSON 202 (B27:11-19) (“Q Where did you take them when you 

arrested them? A. I took them back to the area of North and Western in the Pizza Hut 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 3 of 25 PageID #:15022
3

parking lot and eventually took them over to Area Five, Violent Crimes at 5555 West 

Grand. Q. Do you know whether or not Little D, Brian Johns, participated in a lineup that 

night? A. Yes, he did.”); Ex. 5 – Criminal Trial Transcript (Guevara) at JGS_JOHNSON 

248-249 (B73:22-74:9) (Montanez, Garnett, Gonzalez, and Rosa Burgos all viewed a lineup 

with Johns in it).)

14. A Six-witness lineup report authored by Detective Erickson indicates that 

Detectives Erickson and Guevara conducted a lineup with Johns approximately three hours after 

the shooting and six individuals viewed the lineup: Aby Gonzalez, Forrest Garnett, Fina 

Montanez, Rosaline Morales, Angel Cordova, and Rosa Burgos. Detective Erickson’s lineup 

report states that one of the eyewitnesses, Aby Gonzalez, positively identified Johns as the 

perpetrator of the Fred murder. Aby Gonzalez had known Bryan Johns prior to the shooting. 

(Supporting Evidence: Ex. 7 - Six-witness lineup Report at RFC-Johnson 26-27.)

15. At his civil deposition in this case, Aby Gonzalez denied he identified someone as 

the offender on the night of the shooting and denied that he saw the shooting. (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 8 - Gonzalez Deposition 60:18-61:1, 75:4-8.)

16. The six-witness lineup report of the 6/12/91 lineup indicates it was submitted on 

June 13, 1991, at 5 p.m. The Erickson six-witness lineup report was produced as part of the 

Investigative File as it existed at the time of the City’s Initial 26(a) Disclosures in this case; it 

was not in the Permanent Retention File produced in this case, and Erickson’s report does not 

have a Permanent Retention File stamp. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 7 – Six-witness lineup 

Report at RFC-Johnson 26-27; Ex. 44 – Defendants’ Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures at 4 

(noting the CPD’s Permanent Retention File is bates-stamped RFC-Johnson 38-87); Ex. 44 

– Defendants’ Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures at 4 (noting the CPD’s Investigative File is 

bates-stamped RFC-Johnson 1-37).) 

17. Under CPD policy, completed lineup reports were supposed to be included in the 

Records Division File. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 41 – CPD General Order 83-5 (Foster 

30(b)(6) 00001-00002) (when a lineup is held, a supplementary report must be completed); 

Ex. 50 – 30(b)(6) Deposition of Eric Winstrom at 176:13-177:122 (supplementary reports 

were kept in the records division or permanent retention file).) 

18. Detective Erickson’s lineup report lists five individuals as standing in a lineup: 

Johns (listed as a volunteer), Jozell Hobbs (listed with CB# 8853977), Terrell Agee (listed as a 

volunteer), James Brown (listed with CB# 8854359), and Fabian Wells (listed with CB# 

8854072). (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 7 - Erickson Lineup Report Submitted 6/13/91 (RFCJohnson 26-27).) 

19. Terrell Agee swore under penalty of perjury that he stood in a lineup with Johns 

in the summer of 1991. Much later, Agee was told by Johns that Johns had been selected in that 

lineup. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 16 - Agee Declaration at Johnson 2627-2628), Ex. 9 – 

Agee Deposition at 77:14-78:22.) 

20. Fabian Wells also recalls standing in a lineup in 1991 on the same night the

Chicago Bulls won their first NBA championship. And CPD reports show Hobbs, Brown, and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 4 of 25 PageID #:15023
4

Wells were all arrested on June 12 or 13, 1991, with the same arrest numbers as listed in 

Erickson’s report. Supporting Evidence: Ex. 48 - Wells Declaration (Johnson 5726-5728); 

Ex. 7 – Six-witness (Erickson) Lineup Report Submitted 6/13/91 (RFC-Johnson 26-27); Ex. 

49 - Filler Criminal Histories (RFC-Johnson 25901-25931); Ex. 51 – Hobbs IR Jacket 

(RFC- Johnson 32198); Ex. 52 – Brown Criminal History (RFC-Johnson 32206-32211); Ex. 

53 – Wells IR Jacket (RFC-Johnson 32275); Ex. 54 – Wells Criminal History RFC-Johnson 

32193-32197.) 

21. Detective Erickson’s name does not appear on any police records after the June 

12/13, 1991 lineup report. There is no evidence in the record that Detective Erickson was 

involved in the investigation of Fred’s murder after the first night. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 

10 - Detective Erickson CPD Employment Status form (RFC 034610); Ex. 7 - CPD 

Investigative File at RFC-Johnson 1-37; Ex. 2 – CPD RD file at RFC-Johnson 38-87.) 

22. Detective Erickson retired from the Chicago Police Department on August 2, 

1991. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 10 - Detective Erickson CPD Employment Status form 

(RFC 034610).) 

23. Defendant Guevara wrote a different four-witness lineup report stating that he and 

Detective Erickson conducted a lineup on the night of the shooting with Johns as the suspect. 

Guevara’s lineup report is marked “Permanent Retention File.” The report says that the lineup 

with the four witnesses occurred at 11pm on June 12, 1991, which is also the same time the 

report indicates it was submitted. The report was approved over a month later on July 24, 1991. 

The report does not identify any other police officers as being present for the lineups. According 

to Guevara’s report, four witnesses viewed a lineup: Aby Gonzalez, Forrest Garnett, Fina 

Montanez, and Rosa Burgos. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 2 - Four-witness Lineup report at 

RFC-Johnson 40-42.) 

24. The Four-witness lineup report states that “After four witnesses viewing this lineup the results of it was negative.” (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 2 – Four-witness lineup report

at RFC-Johnson 42 (“After four witnesses viewing this line-up the results of it was 

negative.”); Ex. 5 – Criminal Trial Transcript (Guevara) at JGS_JOHNSON 248-249 

(B73:22-74:9)(“Q. Counsel initially asked you about a number of people that you 

interviewed in connection with this case, among those were a Fina Montanez, a Forest 

Garnett and Abbey Gonzalez and a Rosa Burgos. You interviewed those people? A. I 

interviewed some of them, yes. Q. As a matter of fact those people stood and viewed that 

negative first lineup, did they not? A. Yes, they did. Q. That’s the one with Brian Johns, 

aka Little D was in? A. That’s correct.”).)

25. Defendant Guevara’s lineup report listed five individuals as standing in the 

lineup. All but Johns are different individuals than listed in Detective Erickson’s report. The 

other four individuals listed are: Dewan Patterson, Carlos McFadden, Dwayne David, and 

Michael Robinson. CPD has no arrest reports for any individual named Dwayne David at any 

period, including June 1-15, 1991. The criminal histories of Carlos McFadden and Dewan 

Patterson show they were not arrested in June 1991. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 2 – Fourwitness (Guevara) Lineup Report Submitted 6/12/91 (RFC-Johnson 40-42); Ex. 55 – City’s 

Response to Plaintiff’s Third Set of Requests to Admit at Nos. 1-2; Ex. 56 - Patterson 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 5 of 25 PageID #:15024
5

Criminal History (RFC-Johnson 32259-32269); Ex. 57 – McFadden Criminal History 

(RFC-Johnson 28099-28107).) 

26. At his civil deposition in this case, Aby Gonzalez testified that he was in the 

vicinity of Edwin Fred shooting but did not see the shooter and does not recall participating in a 

lineup related to it or going to Area Five. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 8 - Gonzalez Deposition 

at 35:4-36:8.)

27. The police file in this case contains no photos related to either the six-person 

lineup documented by Defendant Erickson or the four-person lineup documented by Defendant 

Guevara. Defendant Guevara testified that he did not take any photos of the Johns lineup because 

“[no] photos are taken in a negative lineup.” (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 – Criminal Trial 

Transcript (Guevara) at JGS_JOHNSON 246-247 (B71:19-72:22).)

28. Officer Daley was informed that Bryan Johns was not identified in the lineup and 

that he would be subsequently released. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 6 – Daley Deposition at 

76:22-77:12.) 

29. Bryan Johns was released from custody that same night. (Supporting Evidence: 

Ex. 6 - Daley Deposition at 76:22-77:6, 132:20-133:12, 160:8-19; Ex. 7 – Daley 6/13/91 Supp 

Report at RFC-Johnson 34; Ex. 2 – Four-person lineup report at RFC-Johnson 42 

(“Because the results of the line-up was negative the subject JOHNS, Bryan was released 

without charging.”).) 

30. There is no evidence that Defendant Halvorsen was involved in the Edwin Fred 

homicide investigation on the first night, June 12-13, 1991. There is no evidence that Defendant 

Halvorsen was involved in the Edwin Fred homicide investigation before June 29, 1991. 

(Supporting Evidence: Ex. 2 – Four-person lineup report at RFC-Johnson 40-42; Ex. 7 – 

Six-witness lineup Report at RFC-Johnson 26-27; Ex. 2 – Guevara 6/13/91 Supp Report at 

RFC-Johnson 46-53; Ex. 2 - Original Offense Case Report at RFC- Johnson 38-39; Ex. 2 - 

Patrol Supp. Report of 6/29/91 at RFC-Johnson 66 (earliest record of Halvorsen’s name in 

the records).) 

b) Continuing Investigation

31. On July 11, 1991, Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen showed a photo array to 

Elba Burgos in which she indicated that the male she saw running from the scene of the murder 

with a gun in his hand resembled Darrell Johnson, but a little younger. (Supporting Evidence: 

Ex. 2 - 7/17/91 supp report at RFC-Johnson 68-70; Ex. 5 - 11/18/92 Criminal Trial 

Transcript (Elba Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 106 (A95:2-12); Ex. 39 – Photos from Photo 

Array containing Darrell Johnson – Impound Evidence 398-407.)

32. Having knowledge that Darrell Johnson had a younger brother, Defendants 

Guevara and Halvorsen contacted Officer Daley to ask if he had a photo of the younger brother. 

On July 15, 1991, Officer Daley located a photo of the younger brother, Plaintiff Demetrius 

Johnson, along with two other individuals and gave the requested photo to the investigating 

detectives. This was Officer Daley’s last involvement in the Edwin Fred Homicide investigation. 

Officer Daley had no contact with Plaintiff regarding this investigation or any witness that 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 6 of 25 PageID #:15025
6

identified Plaintiff. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 2 - 7/17/91 supp report at RFC-Johnson 68-

70; Ex. 6 – Daley Deposition at 243:24-244:5; 245:6-10, 130:21-131:5.)

33. Later that day on July 15, 1991, Defendants Halvorsen and Guevara showed the 

three-person photo to Elba Burgos, who made a positive identification of Plaintiff Demetrius 

Johnson as the person she saw running with a gun from the scene of the shooting. (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 2 - 7/17/91 supp report at RFC-Johnson 68-70; Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial 

Transcript (Elba Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 106-107 (A95:24-96:24); Ex. 11 – 3-person 

polaroid (trial exhibit 6B) Impound Evidence 410-411.) 

c) The Arrest and Charging of Plaintiff

34. On July 22, 1991, Johnson was arrested by Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen 

for the murder of Edwin Fred and attempted murder of Raul Ortiz. The arrest report listed 

Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen, and was signed by Guevara. Guevara and Halvorsen’s arrest 

report stated during a live lineup Elba Burgos, Ricardo Burgos, and Rosa Burgos identified 

Johnson as the shooter. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 12 – Demetrius Johnson Deposition at 

104:3-13; Ex. 13 - Johnson 07/22/91 Arrest Report at RFC-Johnson 88; Ex. 2 – July 22, 

1991 Lineup Report at RFC-Johnson 72-74.)

35. On July 22, 1991, at 8:30 p.m., Elba Burgos, Rosa Burgos, Angel Cordova, Victor 

Cordova, and Ricardo Burgos all viewed a lineup conducted by Halvorsen and Guevara. Elba 

Burgos identified Demetrius Johnson as the person “she saw run past her home, with gun in his 

hand, immediately after hearing gunshots being fired at the corner of North Ave. & Claremont.” 

Rosa Burgos identified Demetrius Johnson as the person “she saw shot Edwin Fred.” Ricardo 

Burgos identified Demetrius Johnson as the person “he saw shoot Edwin Fred.” Neither Victor 

nor Angel Cordova identified Demetrius Johnson as the person who shot Edwin Fred. 

(Supporting Evidence: Ex. 2 - July 22, 1991 Lineup Report at RFC-Johnson 72-74; Ex. 5 – 

Criminal Trial Transcript (Elba Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 108-109 (A97:8-98:7); Ex. 14 - 

Line up photo (Impound Evidence 389); Ex. 5- Criminal Trial Transcript (Rosa Burgos) at 

JGS_JOHNSON 49-50 (A38:3-39:16); and Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial Transcript (Ricardo 

Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 85-86 (A74:12-75:14).) 

36. Following the lineups, felony review ASA Buckley was contacted and came to 

Area 5. After ASA Buckly reviewed the evidence, interviewed the witnesses, and conducted an 

interview of Demetrius Johnson, ASA Buckley approved felony charges against Plaintiff. 

(Supporting Evidence: Ex. 7 – Cleared/Closed supp. Report at RFC-Johnson 16-17.) 

37. During ASA Buckley’s interview with Demetrius Johnson, Johnson told ASA 

Buckley that he knew of the murder from his friend, Brian Johns. Johnson also stated he was a 

member of the Disciples Street Gang and that he did not recall his whereabouts on the night of 

the murder, but it was his habit to pick up his girlfriend from work at 6:40 p.m. and then to go to 

her house until 9:30 p.m. on every day except for Wednesdays or Sundays. (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 7 – Cleared/Closed supp. Report at RFC-Johnson 15-17.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 7 of 25 PageID #:15026
7

d) Sgt. Healy’s Involvement in the Investigation

38. Sgt. Healy’s name appears in the police records on four documents as the 

approving sergeant, all of which are signed by him on July 24, 1991. These four documents 

include the four-witness lineup report of Defendants Guevara and Erickson claiming there were 

no positive identifications of Bryan Johns on the night of the shooting, as well as the cleared 

closed report and the lineup report of Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen. There is no evidence 

that Sgt. Healy had any other involvement in the Fred murder investigation other than signing the 

four documents. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 2 – Chicago Police Records RD File at RFCJohnson 40, 62, 72, and 76 (Sgt. Healy’s signed reports).)

39. There is no evidence in the record that Sgt. Healy was at Area 5 on any date other 

than July 24, 1991. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 7 - CPD Investigative File at RFC-Johnson 1-

37; Ex. 2 – CPD RD file at RFC-Johnson 38-87.) 

e) Demtrius Johnson, Terrell Agee & Bryan Johns

40. In 1991, Demetrius Johnson (“Johnson”) was associated with the Maniac Latin 

Disciples (“MLD”). (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 12 - Demetrius Johnson Deposition at 45:18-

22; Ex. 9 - Agee Deposition at 12:24-14:12 (“I used to be a Maniac Latin Disciple. We all 

were at the time. We all - you know, we didn't grow up - you know, we were some bad kids. 

I'll put it to you that way, and we had names on the streets.”).) 

41. His best friends, Terrell Agee (“Agee”) and Bryan Johns, (“Johns”) were fellow 

MLDs. Johnson’s older brother Darrell was also an MLD. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 12 – 

Demetrius Johnson Deposition at 56:12-21, 58:1-3; Ex. 15 – Darrell Johnson Deposition at 

39:1-12; Ex. 9 – Agee Deposition at 10:18-19 (“A. Mr. Johnson is one of my best friends. 

We grew up together.”); Id. at 41:4-11 (“Q. [Y]ou met Demetrius's brother, right? A. Yes. 

Q. Okay. And his name was Darrell? A. Yes. Q. Was he also an MLD? A. Yes.”); Id. at 

12:24-13:4 (“Q. [Y]ou and Bryan Johns and Mr. Johnson were all best friends? A. Yes.”).) 

42. Johnson, along with Agee and Johns, would often go “hunting,” which meant 

looking for someone to beat up. They specifically would go catch a King (referring to a Latin 

King), and just beat them up, and let them know who it was that beat them up. (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 9 – Agee Deposition at 66:1-16 (“...back then we would go over there and just 

beat up Kings, you know, go over there in the car, park somewhere two blocks away and 

catch a King or something like that and just beat him up but then let them know who it was 

that beat him up”); id. at 67:21-68:1 (This included Johnson and Johns); id. at 77:19-21 

(“[W]e probably was out messing around at that time again, out hunting as we called it, 

looking for somebody to beat up.”).) 

43. The Kings’ response to these attacks was to get back at the MLDs by trying to 

“put a case on” them, so the Kings would lie to police to try and get them off the street. 

(Supporting Evidence: Ex. 9 – Agee Deposition at 66:17-67:11 (“I believe that was -- that 

was [the Latin Kings] way of getting back at us, always trying to put cases on us... they 

would lie and say,[...] he did this or he did that to get us off the street.”).)

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 8 of 25 PageID #:15027
8

44. Agee testified regarding Officer Daley that “Daley was cool with us. He was a 

fair officer. If he caught you, he caught you, you know. He never tried to put nothing on us, 

never harassed us or nothing like that. He always tried to talk positive to us and, you know, get 

us to get away from that gang life.” (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 9 – Agee Deposition at 65:15-

20 (“Daley was cool with us. He was a fair officer. If he caught you, he caught you, you 

know. He never tried to put nothing on us, never harassed us or nothing like that. He 

always tried to talk positive to us and, you know, get us to get away from that gang life.”).) 

45. Consistent with Erickson’s six-witness lineup report, Terrell Agee stood in a 

lineup with Bryan Johns on June 12, 1991. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 16 - Agee Declaration 

(Johnson 2627-2628).) 

46. Sometime later, Agee estimates about two months after the lineup, while Johns 

and Agee were out “messing around” or “hunting,” as they called it, the two were discussing the 

lineup, and Johns told Agee he was picked out of the lineup that night, but he did not tell Agee 

how he found out. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 9 – Agee Deposition at 77:14-78:5; 131:20-

133:5.) 

47. According to Agee, he knew of a Milwaukee King named Aby, but he did not 

know if his last name was Gonzalez. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 9 – Agee Deposition at 92:11-

24.) 

V. Plaintiff’s interactions with Bryan Johns after his arrest

48. While Plaintiff was detained at Cook County Jail before his trial, Brian Johns was 

also in custody there. Plaintiff knew Johns and considered him an associate from the 

neighborhood. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 12 – Demetrius Johnson Deposition at 300:14-24; 

56:12-21, 57:21-58:6.) 

49. In the summer of 1991, Plaintiff was associated with the Maniac Latin Disciples 

because the people in the gang were guys he grew up with, and who hung out on the same block.

(Supporting Evidence: Ex. 12 – Demetrius Johnson Deposition at 43:5-7, 44:4-9, 45:18-

46:3.) 

50. According to Plaintiff’s brother Darrell Johnson, Johns was a member of the 

Maniac Latin Disciples. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 15 - Darrell Johnson Deposition at 121:6-

122:1.) 

51. Johns told Plaintiff he knew about Plaintiff’s “situation” and Johns had been 

“pointed out in the lineup” the day the crime happened. Johns did not say and Johnson did not 

ask who picked Johns out of the lineup. Plaintiff did not learn that the person who identified 

Johns was Aby Gonzalez until decades later. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 12 – Demetrius 

Johnson Deposition at 300:4-24; 306:19-307:20; 310:3-9, 13-311:4, 314:10-15 (Johns told 

him he stood in a lineup the day the murder happened before Plaintiff’s trial, but did not 

tell him who picked him out of lineup; 318:23-319:8.) 

52. Plaintiff testified that he asked Johns “did he do it,” and Johns said “yes.” When 

Plaintiff asked Johns if he would testify, Johns said no; he would not help Plaintiff at trial. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 9 of 25 PageID #:15028
9

(Supporting Evidence: Ex. 12 – Demetrius Johnson Deposition at 307:21-308:2, 315:2-10, 

317:20-318:11).)

53. The next time Plaintiff saw his criminal trial attorney, Ms. Gubin, he told her 

about this conversation, specifically that Johns told him he had been identified in a lineup on the 

night Fred was shot and had committed the murder, but that he was not willing to testify or to 

help Plaintiff by testifying. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 12 – Demetrius Johnson Deposition at 

307:5-7; 313:5-314:9; 315:2-15; 322:7-323:4.)

54. When Gubin learned this information from Plaintiff she told him they needed 

proof. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 12 – Demetrius Johnson Deposition at 314:16-22 (“We 

need proof”); 315:18-19 (“Q: And what did she say to that [Johns admitted to committing 

the crime]? A: Same thing. We need proof.”).) 

VI. Criminal prosecution 

a) Johnson is Indicted by a Grand Jury. 

55. On August 19, 1991, ASA Susan Ziegler presented her case to a Grand Jury, 

seeking charges against Demetrius Johnson for the offenses of first-degree murder, attempt 

murder, aggravated battery and aggravated discharge of a firearm committed against Edwin Fred, 

Raul Ortiz, Forrest Garnett and Rosa Burgos. Her grand jury synopsis and the grand jury 

testimony make no mention of the June 12, 1991 positive identification of Johns by Aby 

Gonzalez. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 17 - Grand Jury Transcript, Aug. 19, 1991 at 

JGS_JOHNSON 404 (2:2-11, 15, 17, 18, 20).)

56. The Grand Jury returned a True Bill, and Johnson was formally indicted on all 

charges. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 17 – Grand Jury Transcript at JGS_JOHNSON 407

(5:13).)

b) Johnson’s Criminal Defense. 

57. Johnson was initially represented by Cook County Public Defender Jack Carey. 

(Supporting Evidence: Ex. 12 – Demetrius Johnson Deposition at 128:10-19 (Johnson 

recalls being represented by a public defender); Ex. 5 – Criminal Trial Transcript (Carey)

at JGS_JOHNSON 184 (B9:10-14) (Carey testified to representing Demetrius Johnson in 

1991.).)

58. The prosecuting Assistant State’s Attorney requested documents on September 

19, 1991 and Plaintiff’s criminal defense attorney issued a subpoena for documents on July 23, 

1991 that was returnable on August 13, 1991. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 30 – CCSAO Blue 

back notes at CCSAO 005; Ex. 37 - CCPDO subpoenas at CCPD 5-7.)

59. At some point during his representation, APD Carey met with Johnson. APD 

Carey took notes regarding that meeting. Those notes reflect the following: 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 10 of 25 PageID #:15029
10

(Supporting Evidence: Ex. 18 - CCPD Notes at CCPDO 00003; Ex. 12 – Demetrius Johnson 

Deposition at 134:-136:11; Ex. 26 – CCPD Privilege Log.) 

60. According to the notes, on August 28, 1991, APD Carey went to visit Bryan 

Johns in jail. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 18 - CCPD Notes (CCPDO 00001); Ex. 26 – CCPD 

Privilege Log.)

61. On October 22, 1991, Carey filed a request for discovery with the CPD and the 

CCSAO. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 19 - Motion for Discovery, Illinois v. Johnson, No. 91-

19833, Impound Evidence 328-333.)

62. Carey and his investigator Darryl Ellis then began to interview witnesses 

identified in the police reports. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial Transcript 

(Carey) at JGS_JOHNSON 184-185 (B9:10-14, B10:2-5) (Carey testified that in January 

1992, he visited the crime scene and interviewed witnesses listed in the police reports).)

63. In February 1992, Johnson’s family hired a private attorney, Debra Gubin, to 

represent him. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 20 - Gubin Deposition at 14:9-11 (Gubin was 

retained in February 1992); id. at 73:2-18 (Gubin does not recall the details of being 

retained but recalls that she was retained and not appointed.); Ex. 12 – Demetrius Johnson 

Deposition at 132:15-133:8 (Johnson hired a private attorney on the suggestion of his 

grandmother and dad).)

64. When Gubin took over Johnson’s representation from APD Carey, he tendered to 

her police reports, photos and “anything else that [was] not propriety to the public defender’s 

office.” The two discussed the case as well. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 20 - Gubin Deposition

at 52:9-20.)

65. After her review of the file and meeting with APD Carey, Gubin filed a Motion 

for Additional Discovery. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 20 - Gubin Deposition at 52:21-25.)

66. Gubin received material from APD Carey, which she expected would include the 

police reports that had been produced to Carey by ASA Sheehan. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 20 

- Gubin Deposition at 52:1-20; 76:9-13.)

67. At her deposition, Gubin testified as to the specific reasons she filed a Motion for 

Additional Discovery on February 18, 1992. When asked why the motion sought “The photo of 

the line-up taken 6/13/1991” she stated that she included that because she “didn’t have a copy of 

the photo lineup of June 13th. And I knew that there was a lineup, and I wanted a copy of it.” 

Gubin was not asked what particular report she was referring to that referenced a June 13 photo 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 11 of 25 PageID #:15030
11

lineup, and was not referring to the Erickson six-witness lineup report because she testified as the 

defense she never received that report, as did her co-counsel Ruth Miller Nor was Gubin asked if 

she was referring to the June 13 police report written by Defendant Guevara stating, “Photos of 

line up, subject to separate Supp. Report.” (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 21 - Defense Motion for 

Additional Discovery; Ex. 20, Gubin Deposition at 19:20-20:19 (“Q: And can you take us 

through to why you made these additional requests for discovery? A: Sure ... I obviously 

didn’t have a copy of the photo lineup of June 13th. And I knew that there was a lineup, and 

I wanted a copy of it.”) (emphasis added); 34:20-35:2 ) (defense “absolutely did not have 

Erickson’s lineup report in preparation for Johnson’s criminal trial or at any point during 

Johnson’s criminal proceedings.”), 37:1-23; Ex. 24 - Miller Dep. at 75:11-18; 27:4-27:14; 

RFC-Johnson 29.) 

68. Pursuant to the Chicago Police Department policies in place at the time, an 

evidence technician or an authorized member of the Detective Division was required to take 

photographs of any formal lineup which resulted in the identification of a suspect. In the event 

that the lineup did not result in an identification, no photos were required. (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 22 - CPD General Order 88-18; Ex. 23 - Deposition of James Hickey at 

261:24-262:6.)

69. Gubin further testified that she spoke to several of the witnesses identified in the 

reports. She specifically remembered talking to Rosa, a man named Raul, and two other 

unnamed witnesses. She explained she did not interview Aby Gonzalez because based on the 

lineup report that she had Gonzalez had not made any identification of Johns on the night of the 

shooting, he did not view the later lineup of Demetrius Johnson, and there was no other mention 

of him in police reports after the first day of the investigation. If the defense had the Erickson 

lineup report documenting that Gonzalez had identified Johns, she “absolutely” would have 

interviewed Gonzalez. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 20 - Gubin Deposition at 30:6-14 (“Q...Do 

you recall what witnesses you talked to? A. I know I spoke to Rosa. I'm sorry. I'm terrible 

with names. I'm not going to remember the last names. I spoke to Rosa, Raul, the 

gentleman who was in the car, and the woman who lived down the street who saw 

somebody running and she thought dropped a gun in the bushes.”), 31:20-33:16; 36:11-25; 

38:5-25 (if Gubin had received Erickson’s lineup report at the time of trial, among other 

things, she “absolutely” would have gone out and interviewed Gonzalez, subpoenaed him 

and Erickson for trial, and cross-examined Guevara; and the report would have increased 

her chances of winning the suppression motion).)

70. Gubin knew that Plaintiff’s brother, Darrell Johnson went by the nickname “D” 

and that he had a connection to Johns, who was called “Little D”. However, she does not know 

if she had any conversations with Darrell in preparation of Johnson’s defense. (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 20 - Gubin Deposition at 29:9-17 (“Little D, according to my information, 

Little D had gotten the name Little D because Darrel Johnson, Demetrius’ older brother 

was D, and so Little D, who is Bryan Johns, was called Little D”); id. at 68:1-11 (“Q: Okay. 

So is it – did you – is it fair to assume that you understood that Bryan Johns at least knew 

Darrel Johnson? A: Yes.... Q: Okay. Did you ever ask Darrell Johnson about Bryan Johns, 

the person that you believed was that was your theory at least was, he was the real 

murderer? A: I don’t remember having a conversation with Darrel John[son]”).)

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 12 of 25 PageID #:15031
12

71. Gubin testified that she chose not to interview Bryan Johns because he had 

initially been arrested for this and released, and therefore she didn’t know if he had an attorney. 

She also knew he was a gang member, who possibly could have been the real killer, and she 

thought he might not talk to her at all. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 20 - Gubin Deposition at 

29:15-30:5 (“Q. Was there a reason why you didn’t interview Bryan Johns? A. Because of 

the potential that he had initially been arrested for this and released. I didn’t know if he 

had an attorney. I didn’t know if I would be creating problems, for interviewing somebody 

when they didn’t have their attorney present. And I also knew he was a gang member who 

possibly could have been the real shooter, and I don’t think he would have talked to me at 

all.”).)

72. Gubin testified that she never received the Erickson report or any evidence that 

Johns had been positively identified, but that if she had she would not have withdrawn her 

motion to suppress the identifications of Johnson. Gubin also testified that, without the Erickson 

report or evidence that Johns had been positive identified, her thinking was as follows: she filed 

a motion to suppress Johnson’s identification in his criminal case, but determined the “chances 

legally of getting it suppressed were so-so. Were [sic] not really that great[]” and withdrew it. 

She further explained that, because it was a bench trial, she was concerned that if she presented 

the motion to suppress and it was not successful, it would be difficult for her to make her 

planned argument at trial that Johnson’s identification was not reliable. Specifically, Gubin said 

she was concerned she would “bore the judge to tears” and it would be a better strategy to 

present the theory about unreliable identifications all at once. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 20 - 

Gubin Deposition at 37:1-19.)

73. Gubin and Ruth Miller, another attorney who was assisting Gubin on the Johnson 

case, were unable to produce their defense files related to Johnson’s case because Gubin had 

shredded the file and Miller did not believe she had any records involving Johnson’s case. 

(Supporting Evidence: Ex. 20 - Gubin Deposition at 48:1-12 (Gubin testified that the files 

from the Johnson case were shredded in either 2005 or around 2015 or 2016); Ex. 24 - 

Miller Deposition at 45:23-25 (Miller testified that she did not think she had any records 

involving the Johnson case).)

74. In 2016, in another litigation matter involving Guevara, Rivera v. Guevara, 12-

CV-4428 (N.D. Ill.), the Cook County Public Defender’s Office (“CCPD”), in response to a 

record subpoena seeking files related to Johnson, produced a total of 67 pages that did not 

include any Chicago Police Department documents. In addition, 23 of the 67 pages produced 

consisted of medical records for an individual named Levon Jefferson, a criminal defendant in 

1992 who was facing murder charges, and whose criminal proceedings are wholly unrelated to 

Johnson’s case. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 25 - Johnson’s CCPD File at RFC-Johnson 

034611-034677.)

75. In response to a subpoena in this litigation, the CCPD produced the same file, but 

for the first time, included 20 pages of “notes” from APD Carey during his representation of 

Johnson, including interviews with various witnesses. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 26 - CCPD 

Privilege Log; Ex. 18 - CCPD Notes at CCPDO 00001.)

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 13 of 25 PageID #:15032
13

76. Johnson’s assigned APD, Jack Carey, passed away in January 2002. (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 27 – Sheehan Deposition at 29:13-24; Ex. 38 - Jack Carey Obituary, Chicago 

Tribune, Jan. 8, 2002.)

77. The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office (“CCSAO”) could not locate its trial 

file for the criminal prosecution of Demetrius Johnson. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 28 - 

Correspondence from CCSAO re: status of Johnson Criminal File at CCSAO 718 (Carroll 

states that “[t]he State’s Attorney’s Office is conducting a post-conviction review and are 

unable to locate our trial file.”); Ex. 29 - Demetrius Johnson Box/File Identifier at CCSAO 

749 (noting that 91 CR 19833 file contains “Blue Back only.”).)

78. The CCSAO was only able to locate the prosecutor’s “Blue back,” which contains 

notes of ASA Sheehan, including a record of court dates, what documents were ordered and what 

documents were tendered to the defense. ASA Sheehan’s entire set of Blue back notes do not 

contain a single specific notation or specific indication that Sheehan had ever been provided the 

Erickson lineup report, or any other evidence that CPD had disclosed to him that there was a 

positive identification of Johns. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 27 - Sheehan Deposition at 24:12-

17, 61:11-66:7; Ex. 28 - Correspondence from CCSAO re: status of Johnson Criminal File 

at CCSAO 718; Ex. 29 - Demetrius Johnson Box/File Identifier at CCSAO 749.)

79. Based on the CCSAO Blue back, Attorney Sheehan tendered a packet of 

information, likely in court and in front of the bench. This packet of information included the 

Chicago Police Department RD file as well as GPRs, which he used interchangeably with the 

term “street file” or “investigative file.” The Blue back does not specify which particular police 

reports were part of the packet that was tendered to the defense, or what particular documents 

were documents were contained among the “GPRs,” or “street file,” that Sheehan received and 

tendered. However, Sheehan made clear that the Erickson lineup report was not among the 

documents he received. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 27 – Sheehan Deposition at 57:23-58:14, 

39:7-24 (“I’ve never seen this document at the time of trial. This is the first time I’ve seen 

that document with that person getting picked out.”), 43:7-15 (“What gives me confidence 

is the truth, I never got [the Erickson lineup report]”); Ex. 30 – CCSAO Blue back notes at

CCSAO 5.) 

80. Sheehan’s Blue back also delineated what was included in the “GPR” packet, or 

investigative file, included the “RD [file], the police report, the C[B] and arrest report, the 

evidence reports ... and handwritten notes.” The Blue back does not specify which particular 

police reports, notes or other documents were included among the documents characterized as 

“GPRs,” and neither the RD file or Investigative File as exist at this time and produced by the 

City of Chicago in this case contain any handwritten notes generated by the detectives during the 

homicide investigation. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 27 - Sheehan Deposition at 58:14-20; Ex. 

30 – CCSAO Blue back notes at CCSAO 5; Ex. 7 – Investigative File; Ex. 2 – 

RD/Permanent Retention File.)

81. Sheehan’s Blue back also noted the requests made in Gubin’s Motion for 

Additional Discovery. Specifically on February 28, 1992, Sheehan noted that Gubin was 

requesting the following additional information:

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 14 of 25 PageID #:15033
14

Sheehan believes the notation, “6/13/91 Lineup photo No ID” refers to the lineup report 

documenting that there was no identification. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 30 – CCSAO Blue 

back notes at CCSAO 6-7; Ex. 27 - Sheehan Dep. at 45:16-46:6 (“It could well refer to the 

negative line-up where there was no ID. I assume that’s what the negative line-up is. . . . I 

can’t think about it being anything else.”.)

82. ASA Sheehan requested that Defendant Halvorsen bring him the file related to the 

Fred homicide investigation, as indicated in a note in the Investigative File containing the 

Erickson six-witness lineup report. Ex. 7 - RFC-Johnson 12; Ex. 27 - Sheehan Dep. at 67:6-23 

(“[O]bviously I reached out to the police department to give—tell Halvorsen to bring his 

file, that’s all I can tell you.”.)

83. The June 13, 1991, Six-witness lineup Report is not signed by a supervising 

officer. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 31 – Galvez Deposition (56:19-57:4) (Doesn’t dispute a 

report that has a sergeant’s signature “saying they reviewed the report” but the June 13 

report “doesn’t have any signature...I cannot say it transpired.”).)

c) Criminal Trial

84. Sgt. Healy, Detective Erickson and Detective Halvorsen did not testify at 

Plaintiff’s pre-trial proceedings or trial and no police reports themselves were admitted into 

evidence as exhibits at trial. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 – Criminal Trial Transcript at 

JGS_JOHNSON 10-309 (complete transcript), JGS_JOHNSON 11-12 (A2, B2) (index of 

witnesses); Ex. 17 – JGS_JOHNSON 403-409 (Grand Jury Testimony).)

85. Johnson’s criminal trial began on November 18, 1992. (Supporting Evidence: 

Ex. 5 – Criminal Trial Transcript at JGS_JOHNSON 10 (A1).)

86. No police officer witnesses were called by the State. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 

5 - Criminal Trial Transcript at JGS_JOHNSON 11-12 (index of witnesses), 

JGS_JOHNSON 10-114 (State’s case), JGS_JOHNSON 258-259 (State’s rebuttal).)

87. Aby Gonzalez did not testify at Johnson’s criminal trial but was interviewed the 

day of the shooting. He further gave a deposition in the instant case where he testified about 

where he grew up in Humboldt Park, and identified the area as one that had a lot of gangs in it. 

Gonzalez denied being a member of a gang, but admitted when he was younger, he used to hang 

out with gang members, specifically Cobras in his neighborhood. He further explained that 

Cobras are Latin Kings. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial Transcript at 

JGS_JOHNSON 11-12 (A2, B2); Ex. 7 - General Offense Case Report at RFC-Johnson 36-

37; Ex. 8 - Gonzalez Deposition at 101:22-102:3, 106:22-107:10.)

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 15 of 25 PageID #:15034
15

d) Trial Testimony of the Three Eyewitnesses

i. Ricardo Burgos:

88. Ricardo Burgos testified that on June 12, 1991, at approximately 7:45, he was

driving with a friend East down North Ave. At that time he saw a black guy wearing a T-shirt 

and gray pants walking North down Claremont with a gun in his hand. (Supporting Evidence: 

Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial Transcript (Ricardo Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 79 (A68:16-21), 

JGS_JOHNSON 80-81 (A69:22-70:7).)

89. Mr. Burgos testified he viewed this guy with a gun from across the street and he

estimated the distance being about sixty feet. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial 

Transcript (Ricardo Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 80 (A69:18-24).)

90. Mr. Burgos testified that he then saw this man fire the gun. (Supporting

Evidence: Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial Transcript (Ricardo Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 81 

(A70:8-10).)

91. Mr. Burgos testified that he looked at this man who fired the gun for about fortyfive seconds and could see his face. Mr. Burgos then identified Demetrius Johnson as the person 

he saw fire the gun that day. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial Transcript 

(Ricardo Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 81 (A70:12-15), JGS_JOHNSON 85 (A74:3-14).)

92. Mr. Burgos also testified to two events that are not documented in any police

reports in the case: he was shown Polaroid photos of the suspect before the July 22, 1991 lineup, 

and he was shown photos on June 21, 1991 at his mother’s home. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 

- Criminal Trial Transcript (Ricardo Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 82-83 (A71:11-A72:19),

JGS_JOHNSON 97 (A86:3-24).)

93. Ricardo Burgos testified at his civil deposition that he was 60-70 feet away when

the shooting occurred, that he only saw the shooter running away from behind and never saw his 

face, and that any claim by police that he could identify the shooter was false. (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 7 – RFC Johnson 25 (police report stating Ricardo “notice[d] a male 

hispanic coming out of Claremont pulling out a big gun from his waist”); Ex. 46 - Ricardo 

Affidavit, Johnson 601-603; Ex. 32 - Ricardo Deposition at 17:10-19:4, 38:5-14 (if the police 

said he could of identified the shooter, that it would have been false), 45:5-11 (“Q. “[I]s is it 

fair to say that if you were shown photos or lineups, you would not have been able to 

identify anyone? A. That's correct.”); Ex. 5 - Ricardo Burgos Criminal Trial Testimony, 

Ex. 42 - Guevara Dep. at 23:12-26:1 (Ricardo did not see shooter’s face); 29:21-30:1; 53:8-

54:12 (Ricardo shown June 1991 photo array in which he could not identify anyone); 

78:23-81:15 (Guevara told Ricardo who to pick); Ex. 47 - Dysart Expert Report (opining as 

to the circumstances that made the identification highly unreliable and unlikely without 

prompting).) 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 16 of 25 PageID #:15035
16

ii. Elba Burgos

94. On June 12, 1991, Elba Burgos lived on the 1500 block of Claremont, on the East

side of the street, which runs north/south. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial 

Transcript (Elba Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 101 (A90:12-23).)

95. At about 7:45 p.m., Elba was sitting on her front porch and heard gunshots.

(Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial Transcript (Elba Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 

101-102 (A90:24-91:5).)

96. She testified that after she heard the shots she stood up and looked towards North

Ave and next saw a man running in her direction with a gun going southbound on Claremont. 

(Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial Transcript (Elba Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 

102 (A91:14-21).)

97. Elba Burgos testified that the person she saw with a gun was young and black and

about 25 feet from her on the opposite side of the street (West side). (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 

5 - Criminal Trial Transcript (Elba Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 103 (A92:1-4, 8-24).)

98. At trial, Elba Burgos identified Demetrius Johnson as the person she saw that

night with the gun. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial Transcript (Elba Burgos) 

at JGS_JOHNSON 104 (A93:2-12).)

99. Elba Burgos testified that on July 11, 1991, Det. Guevara came to her house and

showed her photographs. She viewed photographs 7A-7E and told Det. Guevara that the person 

looked like 7C but younger. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial Transcript (Elba 

Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 105-106 (A94:3-95:12); Ex. 39 - Photo array (7A-7E) Impound 

Evidence 398-407.)

100. Elba Burgos testified that on July 15, 1991, Det. Guevara came to see her at her

home and showed her a photograph and she identified Demetrius Johnson as the person she saw 

running past her with a gun. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial Transcript (Elba 

Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 106-107 (A95:24-96:24); Ex. 11 – 3-person polaroid (trial 

exhibit 6B) Impound Evidence 410-411.)

101. Elba testified that on July 22, 1991, she viewed a lineup at the police station and

identified Demetrius Johnson as the person she saw carrying a gun on Claremont. (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial Transcript (Elba Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 108-109 

(A97:8-98:7) Ex. 14 - Line up photo (Impound Evidence 389).)

102. Elba Burgos was on her front porch on the East side of the street, and the shooter

was running down the sidewalk on the West side of the street. She only had a few seconds to see 

the shooter as he was running by, and any identification came only weeks later. Elba’s trial 

identification came after she was shown Plaintiff’s picture multiple times, including in a single 

photo containing Plaintiff and two dissimilar individuals, and a lineup in which he was the only 

person from prior photos. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 7 – Police Report of Elba Interview, at 

RFC-Johnson 19 (sitting on her front porch, saw person with gun running down the 

sidewalk on West side of street); Ex. 5 – JGS_JOHNSON 111-112 (A-100:19-A-101:13 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 17 of 25 PageID #:15036
17

(person running was on other side of street), JGS_JOHNSON 121 (A-110:18-20) (she had 

only a few seconds to see the shooter’s face ); Ex. 11 – 3-person polaroid (trial exhibit 6B) 

Impound Evidence 410-411; Ex. 14 - Line up photo (Impound Evidence 389); Ex. 42 - 

Guevara Dep: 27:4-9 (Elba did not give police a description of shooter when she first spoke 

to them),30:2-7 (Elba said she could not give good description of the shooter and could not 

identify him), 54:20-55:25 (Photo array shown to Elba and Guevara made up that she ID’d 

Darrell but younger), 56:1-11 (“what you showed Elba was not a proper photo array, was 

it?”), 56:12-59:12 (improper fillers and improper ID procedures and did not disclose 

manipulation), 64:18-65:13 (tainting Elba’s live lineup ID), 72:10-22 (only evidence was you 

telling her who to pick), 77:15-78:1; Ex. 47 - Dysart Expert Report (opining as to the 

circumstances that made the identification highly unreliable and unlikely without 

prompting).)

iii. Rosa Burgos 

103. Rosa Burgos testified that on June 12, 1991, at about 7:45 p.m., she was coming 

out of her building with Raul Ortiz. She saw the person shoot Raul Ortiz, then she ran back 

upstairs. She was approximately 10 feet from the person who shot Raul Ortiz, and saw his face 

for four seconds. The person who shot Raul was short, black and young. (Supporting Evidence: 

Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial Transcript (Rosa Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 43-44 (A32:16-33:20), 

JGS_JOHNSON 45 (A34:6-13), JGS_JOHNSON 45-46 (A34:22-35:8), JGS_JOHNSON 46 

(A35:13-20).)

104. Rosa Burgos identified Demetrius Johnson as the person who shot Raul Ortiz in 

court. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial Transcript at JGS_JOHNSON 46-47 

(A35:21-36:8).)

105. Rosa Burgos testified she viewed a lineup at Area 5 violent crimes on June 12, 

1991 and did not identify anyone. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial Transcript 

(Rosa Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 47 (A36:9-18).)

106. Rosa Burgos testified that she knew “Little D” prior to the shooting and testified it 

was not “Little D” who shot Raul Ortiz. Rosa Burgos knew that Little D’s real name was Brian 

Johns. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 - Criminal Trial Transcript (Rosa Burgos) at 

JGS_JOHNSON 47-48 (A36:21-37:14), JGS_JOHNSON 55 (A44:11-13).)

107. Rosa testified that on July 22, 1991, she went to Area 5 to view a lineup and 

identified Demetrius Johnson as the person who shot Raul Ortiz. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 - 

Criminal Trial Transcript (Rosa Burgos) at JGS_JOHNSON 49-50 (A38:3-39:16); Ex. 14 - 

Line up photo (impound Evidence 389).)

108. Rosa Burgos’s statement to police and other sworn testimony include that Rosa 

Burgos was in a building walking down a staircase behind Raul Ortiz, and ran back upstairs 

when the shooting started. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 7 - RFC-Johnson 20-21, Rosa Dep. at 

40:21-42:19; Ex. 42 - Guevara Dep. 27:15-29:20 (Rosa did not see the shooter’s face and 

could not make identification).)

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 18 of 25 PageID #:15037
18

e) Det. Guevara and Officer Daley Called in the defense case

109. Detective Guevara and Officer Daley did not testify on behalf of the state at 

Plaintiff’s trial but were called by the Plaintiff’s defense attorney. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 

– Criminal Trial Transcript at JGS_JOHNSON 10-309 (complete trial transcript), 

JGS_JOHNSON 11-12 (A2, B2) (index of witnesses); Ex. 17 – JGS_JOHNSON 403-409 

(Grand Jury Testimony).)

110. Officer Daley testified about his arrest of Johns. Daley testified that Johns was not 

identified in a lineup on the night of the shooting. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 – Criminal

Trial Transcript (Daley) at JGS_JOHNSON 206-207 (B31:15-32:10).)

111. Defendant Guevara testified that there was a lineup conducted on June 12, 1991 in 

which Johns was the suspect. Guevara testified that all supplemental reports with the RD number 

for the Fred homicide investigation were kept in the same, centrally kept location so that they 

would all be available if subpoenaed. The Six-witness lineup Report indicating Aby Gonzalez 

identified Bryan Johns as the gunman lists the same RD# (P270878) as Guevara’s report, but it is 

contained in the Investigative File only, not the Permanent Retention File. (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 5 – Criminal Trial Transcript (Guevara) at JGS_JOHNSON 229 (B54:5-14), 

JGS_JOHNSON 232 (B57:7-10); Ex. 2 – Four-witness lineup report (RFC-Johnson 40-42); 

Ex. 7 – Six-witness lineup Report (RFC-Johnson 26-27).)

112. Defendant Guevara testified that no one identified anyone in the lineup in which 

Johns was the suspect on June 12, 1991, the day of the shooting. Guevara did not testify to the 

existence of any June 13 lineup, or any lineup in which there was any positive identification of 

Johns. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 – Criminal Trial Transcript (Guevara) at 

JGS_JOHNSON 248-249 (B73:22-74:9) (“Q. Counsel initially asked you about a number of 

people that you interviewed in connection with this case, among those were a Fina 

Montanez, a Forest Garnett and Abbey Gonzalez and a Rosa Burgos. You interviewed 

those people? A. I interviewed some of them, yes. Q. As a matter of fact those people stood

and viewed that negative first lineup, did they not? A. Yes, they did. Q. That’s the one with 

Brian Johns, aka Little D was in? A. That’s correct.”).) 

113. The defense argued that Johnson was misidentified during suggestive police 

identification procedures weeks after the shooting. The defense also argued that Johnson looked 

like Johns—the original suspect and the man arrested on the day of the crime—which may have 

contributed to the misidentification. In addition, they argued that Johnson’s alibi was uniquely 

credible because of the significance of the night: the Bulls first championship was on TV and 

Reyes and Martinez with whom Johnson watched the game were not basketball fans and did not 

usually watch games, so the night was memorable. Defense counsel also argued that Guevara’s

failure to report on much of his investigation, including photo identifications, was suspicious and 

showed he didn’t care about the truth. If defense counsel had known about the positive 

identification documented in the Erickson lineup report, they would have definitely used it at 

trial in cross examining witnesses and in support of their argument at trial. (Supporting

Evidence: Ex. 5 – Criminal Trial Transcript (Gubin Closing) at JGS_JOHNSON 260-277 

(B85:15-102:2); Ex. 20 – Gubin Deposition at 28:18-29:17 (defense theory was that Johns 

committed the shooting based on Johns’ being mentioned in the broadcast the night of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 19 of 25 PageID #:15038
19

crime and his getting arrested.), 31:20-33:16; 36:11-25; 38:5-25 (if Gubin had received 

Erickson’s lineup report at the time of trial, among other things, she “absolutely” would 

have gone out and interviewed Gonzalez, subpoenaed him and Erickson for trial, and 

cross-examined Guevara; and the report would have increased her chances of winning the 

suppression motion), 47:3-5 (would’ve been argued in opening statement); Ex. 24 – Miller 

Deposition at 29:2-9 (Johns was the perpetrator according to the defense’s theory), 36:10-

24 (in response to Sheehan closing argument would have gotten up and used the report, the 

report “would have been all over this case”); Ex. 27 – Sheehan Deposition at 40:19-41:3 

(recalled the defense argued that Johns was the real shooter in closing).)

114. In the State’s closing argument, in rebutting the defense argument that Johns was 

the true perpetrator, Prosecutor Sheehan stated that none of the witnesses who viewed the June 

12, 1991, lineup that included Johns identified him. Prosecutor Sheehan mentioned Aby 

Gonzalez as not identifying Johns. ASA Sheehan would have never argued in closing argument 

that no one identified Johns in a June 12 lineup if he had been given the Erickson six-witness 

lineup report. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 – Crim. Tri. Transcript at JGS_JOHNSON 277-

288; Ex. 27 – Sheehan Dep. at 35:10-15 (agreed his closing argument was that no one had 

picked Johns out of a lineup in the case), 39:17-24.)

115. There was no mention of any positive identification of Johns or of the six-witness 

lineup report (Erickson’s) report at Johnson’s criminal trial. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 – 

Criminal Trial Transcript, JGS_JOHNSON 10-308.)

116. Johnson was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for the murder of Fred 

and 10 years in prison for the attempted murder of Ortiz to be served concurrently. (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 5 – Criminal Trial Transcript at JGS_JOHNSON 288 (B113:6-12), 

JGS_JOHNSON 305 (C15:18-23).)

VII. Deposition Testimony of the Three Eyewitnesses

a) Ricardo Burgos: 

117. At his deposition in this case, Ricardo Burgos, who suffered a serious head injury 

in 1996 or 1997 that impacts his memory, testified that while he doesn’t recall testifying in 

Johnson’s criminal case, he would not have lied under oath in front of a judge. (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 32 - Ricardo Burgos Deposition at 79:5-80:20.)

b) Elba Burgos: 

118. In 2022, a woman named Ada Elba Burgos was subpoenaed and testified during a 

civil deposition in this case. She testified that she recalled living in the area of North Avenue and 

Claremont, but that she did not recall living at 1535 N. Claremont, of talking to police after a 

shooting in 1991 or of testifying at a criminal proceeding in 1992. She could not recall when she 

got married or her husband’s name. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 33 - Elba Burgos Deposition, 

April 26, 2022, (10:17-20; 15:19-16:2; 26:11-27:4; 44:7-25; 48:9:15).)

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 20 of 25 PageID #:15039
20

c) Rosa Burgos: 

119. At her deposition in this case, Rosa Burgos testified that she currently suffers 

from hereditary memory issues but stated that she would not have lied to the police if asked 

questions about a shooting and would have told the truth when under oath and giving testimony 

in a court room. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 34 - Rosa Burgos Deposition, May 12, 2022 (at 

18:5-7, 22:9-24; 23:12-14).)

VIII. Post-Conviction: 

120. On November 12, 2019, Cook County Judge LeRoy K. Martin, Jr. granted 

Johnson relief, vacating his conviction and ordering a new trial. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 35 

– Order Vacating Conviction (Johnson 513).)

121. On December 20, 2019, state prosecutors dropped all charges against Johnson. 

(Supporting Evidence: Ex. 12 – Demetrius Johnson Deposition at 37:8-12; Ex. 36 – Johnson 

Criminal Docket.)

IX. Plaintiff’s Claims 

122. One of Johnson’s contentions is that Defendants “knowingly procured false 

identifications of Plaintiff as the person responsible for the Fred murder from Richard Burgos, 

Rosa Burgos, and Elba Burgos, after which they concealed the falsity of the identification for 

decades.” (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 40 - Plaintiff’s Fourth Supplemental Responses to 

Defendant Daley’s First Set of Interrogatories at p. 3.) 

123. Johnson alleges that Defendants suppressed the six-witness lineup report 

(“Erickson Report”) and also argues that Defendants failed to disclose their fabrication of 

witness statements and non-descript general personal documents allegedly created. (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 40 - Plaintiff’s Fourth Supplemental Responses to Defendant Daley’s First 

Set of Interrogatories at p. 2-3.) 

124. Johnson also makes the contention that “‘street files’ and/or ‘personal notes’ 

and/or ‘personal files’ kept by detectives working on and in regard to the Edwin Fred murder 

were fabricated, withheld, destroyed or concealed, and that such documents contained 

exculpatory and impeaching information that would have permitted Johnson to demonstrate his 

innocence.” (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 40 - Plaintiff’s Fourth Supplemental Responses to 

Defendant Daley’s First Set of Interrogatories at p. 2.) 

126. According to a police report from the day of the shooting, June 12, 1991, 

Aby Gonzalez did see the shooting, stating that the shooter “pulled a gun and pointed it at 

him and stood there for several seconds,” and then “fire two shots at Fred [the victim] . . . 

and ran past Gonzalez again. . . .” And according to the Erickson six-witness lineup 

report documenting a lineup occurring on the same day, Aby Gonzalez made a positive 

identification of Bryan Johns as the shooter. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 2 – RFC 

Johnson 52; Ex. 7 – Erickson Six-Witness Lineup Report at RFC-Johnson 26-27.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 21 of 25 PageID #:15040
21

127. On October 7, 2019, attorney Josh Tepfer met with Aby Gonzalez and 

spoke about his memories of the shooting. Mr. Tepfer testified, consistent with his notes 

of that meeting, that Aby Gonzalez stated that he did identify someone as the shooter on 

the night of the shooting. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 43 - Tepfer Dep. Vol. II at 88:17-

90:20; Ex. 45 - Johnson 911-912 (Tepfer Report, detailing that Gonzalez told him 

that he positively identified someone in a lineup on the night of the shooting).) 

128. Aby Gonzalez testified at his civil deposition that he could not dispute 

whether he gave this statement to Mr. Tepfer on October 7, 2019, because he did not 

remember one way or the other what his statement was. At that deposition, Gonzalez also 

testified that he was not disputing the information contained in the Erickson police report 

documenting his positive identification. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 8 - Aby Gonzalez 

Dep. at 23:2-11; 29:12-16; 30:5-11; 44:24-45:22; 74:24-75:10; 93:4-94:11 (where he 

states that he cannot say if Erickson report is true or not); 55:10-15, 77:14-78:2, 

78:15-79:3.)

129. Ricardo Burgos testified at this civil deposition that he was 60-70 feet 

away when the shooting occurred, that he only saw the shooter running away from 

behind and never saw his face, and that any claim by police that he could identify the 

shooter was false. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 46 - Ricardo Affidavit, Johnson 601-

603; Ex. 32 - Ricardo Deposition at 17:10-19:4, 38:5-14 (if the police said he could of 

identified the shooter, that it would have been false), 45:5-11 (“Q. “[I]s is it fair to 

say that if you were shown photos or lineups, you would not have been able to 

identify anyone? A. That's correct.”).) 

130. Elba Burgos’s criminal trial testimony, and the police report of the initial 

interview of Elba, indicate that Elba was on her front porch on the East side of the street, 

and saw the shooter running down the sidewalk past her house on the West side of the 

street (opposite her home on the East side of the street), and she had only four to five

seconds to see the shooter’s face. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 7 – Police Report of Elba 

Interview, at RFC-Johnson 19 (sitting on her front porch, saw person with gun 

running down the sidewalk on West side of street); Ex. 5 – JGS_JOHNSON 111-112 

(A-100:19-A-101:13) (person running was on other side of street). Ex. 5 – JGS 

JOHNSON 121 (A-110:18-20); see also Ex. 42 - Guevara Dep: 27:4-9 (Elba did not 

give police a description of shooter when she first spoke to them), 30:2-7 (Elba said 

she could not give good description of the shooter and could not identify him).) 

131. The police report documenting officers’ initial interview of Rosa Burgos 

indicates that Rosa was in a building walking down a staircase behind Raul Ortiz, and ran 

back upstairs as soon as the shooting started. Rosa testified that she “had trouble 

distinguishing between black people because all those people look alike”; and that when 

she viewed a lineup she did not make a positive identification but instead told the police 

she was unsure. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 7 – Police Report of Rosa Interview, 

RFC-Johnson 20-21; Ex. 34 - Rosa Deposition at 40:21-42:19; Ex. 5 – Rosa Trial 

Testimony at JGS_Johnson 66 (R. A-55:6-10), 1188-1189 (B-12:19 –B-13:11).)

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 22 of 25 PageID #:15041
22

132. Demetrius Johnson’s Public Defender, Jack Carey, testified at trial that 

when he interviewed Rosa Burgos, she told him that she had gone to the police station on 

an earlier occasion (before the lineup in which Demetrius Johnson was the suspect) to 

view a different lineup. At that time, three individuals had identified someone and she 

was told by police that they had the wrong guy. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 – PD 

Carey Trial Testimony, JGS_Johnson 187 (B-12:2-18) (Public Defender testifying 

that Rosa told him there were three identifications previously and the police told 

them it was wrong guy).) 

133. When Reynaldo Guevara was asked at his deposition whether Elba, Rosa 

and Ricardo told him they could not identify the shooter, whether he told them who to 

pick, and whether he ultimately fabricated police reports falsely claiming that they had 

identified Plaintiff without his interference, Guevara pleaded the Fifth. (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 42 – Guevara Deposition at p. 22:22-23:1, 24:5-30:25, 78:17-81:20, 

82:6-84:7, 91:23-92:21, 101:23-104:4, 110:4-111:8 (pleading Fifth on these issues 

throughout deposition).)

134. Based on the initial police report documenting Defendant Guevara’s 

interview of Ricardo Burgos, Ricardo told police that the shooter was a “male hispanic,” 

not a “black guy.” (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 7 - RFC Johnson 25 (“he noticed a 

male hispanich”); Ex. 5 – Guevara Trial Testimony at JGS_Johnson 227 (B-52:5-9) 

(Q. What is the description given by Ricardo Burgos? A. . . . male Hispanic”).) 

135. In a sworn statement given on October 8, 2020, Ricardo Burgos swore that 

he was 60-70 feet away when the shooting occurred, “did not see the man with a 

weapon,” and only saw the shooter running away from behind and never saw his face. 

(Supporting Evidence: Ex. 46 - Ricardo Affidavit, Johnson 601-603.) 

136. As set forth in Paragraphs 94, 95, 97, and 102 above, Elba Burgos also 

testified that she was on her front porch on the East side of the street, and saw the shooter 

running down the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street. (Supporting Evidence: 

Ex. 7 – Police Report of Elba Interview, at RFC Johnson 19 (sitting on her front 

porch, saw person with gun running down the sidewalk on West side of street); Ex. 

5 – JGS_JOHNSON 111-112 (A-100:19-A-101:13 (person running was on other side 

of street)), 101-102 (A90:12-91:5).)

137. Rosa Burgos testified at her civil deposition that she did not know an individual 

named Bryan Johns. The police report documenting the police interview of Rosa Burgos contains 

no reference to Rosa recognizing the shooter or Bryan Johns as someone she knew from the 

neighborhood, nor does the Erickson police report documenting a lineup viewed by Rosa Burgos 

in which Johns was the suspect. (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 34 – Rosa Deposition at 19:23-

20:2 (“Q. Did you know an individual named Bryan Johns? A. Who? Q. Bryan Johns. A. 

No.”), 20:3-20:5 (same), 64:7-65:5; Ex. 7 – Erickson Lineup Report, at RFC-Johnson 27; 

Ex. 7 – Supplementary Report of Interview of Rosa Burgos, at RFC-Johnson 21.) 

138. At trial, Ricardo Burgos denied telling Detective Guevara that he “noticed a male 

Hispanic coming out of Claremont pulling out a big gun from his person” and testified that he 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 23 of 25 PageID #:15042
23

told him “it was a black guy.” (Supporting Evidence: Ex. 5 - Ricardo Burgos Criminal Trial 

Testimony, JGS_JOHNSON 89 (A-78:10-19) (Q: And you told Detective Guerra that you 

noticed a male Hispanic coming out of Claremont pulling out a big gun from his person? A: 

No, I didn't. Q: So you never told him that you saw a male Hispanic? Are you saying no you 

did not say a male Hispanic or no you didn't say you saw somebody pulling out a gun? A: I 

told him it was a black guy.).)

139. Assistant Public Defender Carey interviewed Rosa Burgos. He testified at trial 

that when he asked her whether she identified anyone in the “lineup she viewed the night of the 

shooting,” she said “everything happened so fast and that she wasn’t sure.” (Supporting 

Evidence: Ex. 5 –Trial Testimony (APD Carey) at JGS_Johnson 187 (B12:2-10).) 

Dated: April 12, 2024 Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Anand Swaminathan 

Anand Swaminathan 

Jon Loevy 

Anand Swaminathan 

Steve Art

Rachel Brady 

LOEVY & LOEVY

311 N. Aberdeen 

Chicago, IL 60607

(312) 243-5900 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ Josh M. Engquist 

Josh M. Engquist, Atty. No. 6242849 

One of the Attorneys for the Individual 

Defendants

Josh M. Engquist 

James G. Sotos

Josh M. Engquist 

David A. Brueggen 

Elizabeth R. Fleming

Daniel McGinnis 

Special Assistant Corporation Counsel

THE SOTOS LAW FIRM, P.C.

141 W. Jackson, Suite 1240A 

Chicago, IL 60604

(630) 735-3300 

jengquist@jsotoslaw.com

/s/ Thomas M. Leinenweber 

Thomas M. Leinenweber, Atty. No. 

6209086 

One of the Attorneys for Defendant Reynaldo 

Gueavra

Thomas M. Leinenweber 

Michael J. Schalka

James V. Daffada

Leinenweber Baroni & Daffada

120 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2000 

Chicago, IL 60602

(312) 663-3003 

thomas@ilesq.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 24 of 25 PageID #:15043
24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I, Josh M. Engquist, certify under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746 that 

the foregoing is true and correct, that on Friday, April 12, 2024, I electronically filed the 

foregoing Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the attorneys of record on the 

below Service List.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

Jon Loevy 

Anand Swaminathan 

Joshua Tepfer

Rachel Brady

Steven Art 

Sean Starr

Alyssa Martinez

Margaret Gould

LOEVY & LOEVY

311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60607 

312-243-5900 

jon@loevy.com

anand@loevy.com

josh@loevy.com

brady@loevy.com

steve@loevy.com

sean@loevy.com

alyssa@loevy.com

gould@loevy.com

Attorneys for City of Chicago:

Eileen E. Rosen

Austin G. Rahe 

Catherine M. Barber

Theresa B. Carney

Rock Fusco & Connelly, LLC 

321 N. Clark, Suite 2200 

Chicago, Illinois 60654 

312-494-1000 

erosen@rfclaw.com

arahe@rfclaw.com

cbarber@rfclaw.com

tcarney@rfclaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Guevara: 

Thomas M. Leinenweber

Michael J. Schalka

James V. Daffada

Leinenweber Baroni & Daffada

120 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2000 

Chicago, IL 60602

(312) 663-3003 

thomas@ilesq.com

mjs@ilesq.com

jim@ilesq.com

/s/ Josh M. Engquist 

Josh M. Engquist 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 313 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 25 of 25 PageID #:15044