IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES FLETCHER JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEROME BOGUCKI, ANTHONY 

NORADIN, RAYMOND SCHALK, 

ANTHONY WOJCIK, UNKNOWN CITY 

OF CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS, and the 

CITY OF CHICAGO

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, JAMES FLETCHER JR., by his attorneys, LOEVY & LOEVY

and JENNIFER BLAGG, and complaining of Defendants JEROME BOGUCKI, ANTHONY 

NORADIN, RAYMOND SCHALK, ANTHONY WOJCIK, UNKNOWN CITY OF CHICAGO 

POLICE OFFICERS, and the CITY OF CHICAGO and states as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff James Fletcher spent 13 years wrongfully imprisoned for the shooting 

death of Willie Sorrell, which occurred on December 21, 1990. 

2. Fletcher had nothing to do with Mr. Sorrell’s death, and has always maintained 

his innocence. 

3. Not one piece of physical evidence connected Fletcher to the Sorrell murder, and 

he had no motive to commit the crime. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 1 of 40 PageID #:1
4. Fletcher’s arrest, prosecution, and resulting wrongful conviction rested solely on 

fabricated evidence and false testimony that the Defendants secured through manipulation, 

coercion, and other improper investigative techniques. 

5. Now exonerated, after over a decade of fighting for his freedom, Fletcher brings 

this lawsuit seeking justice for the harms the Defendants have caused, and seeking redress for the 

damage he suffered. 

JURISDCTION AND VENUE

6. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Illinois law to redress the 

Defendants’ tortious conduct and their deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights secured by the U.S. 

Constitution.

7. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331 and supplemental jurisdiction of his state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiff resides in this judicial 

district. The events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within this judicial 

district, including the investigation, prosecution, and trial resulting in Plaintiff’s conviction.

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff James Fletcher is 57 years old. He lives in Chicago, Illinois. At all times 

relevant to the events described in this Complaint, he was a citizen of the state of Illinois. 

10. At all times relevant to the events described in this Complaint, Defendants Jerome 

Bogucki, Anthony Noradin, Raymond Schalk, and other unknown law enforcement officers were 

police officers in the Chicago Police Department. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 2 of 40 PageID #:2
11. At all times relevant to the events described in this Complaint, Defendant 

Anthony Wojcik and other unknown law enforcement officers supervised the officers in the 

preceding paragraph. These Defendants participated in the misconduct alleged in this Complaint 

and also facilitated, condoned, approved, and turned a blind eye to the misconduct of the 

Defendants whom they supervised. 

12. Defendant City of Chicago is an Illinois municipal corporation that is or was the 

employer of the above-named Defendants. Each of the Defendants named in this Complaint 

acted during their investigation of the Willie Sorrell murder as agents or employees of the City of 

Chicago. The City of Chicago is liable for all torts committed by the Defendants pursuant to the 

doctrine of respondeat superior. Additionally, the City of Chicago is responsible for the policies 

and practices of the Chicago Police Department. 

13. Each and every individual Defendant, known and unknown, acted under color of 

law and within the scope of his or her employment at all times relevant to this lawsuit. Each of 

the individual Defendants is sued in his or her individual capacity unless otherwise noted. 

FACTS

The Crime

14. On the afternoon of December 21, 1990, two armed men robbed the driver of a 

delivery truck on the 5600 block of West Madison Street in Chicago. 

15. After the two men fled the truck, the driver, 38-year-old Edward Cooper, pulled 

out the gun he kept for protection and began firing at the robbers. 

16. The robbers and Cooper exchanged gunfire. In the process, a stray bullet from one 

of the robbers’ guns struck and killed a 65-year-old bystander named Willie Sorrell. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 3 of 40 PageID #:3
17. The assailants escaped down Madison Street. Neither of them were apprehended 

by police. 

The Underlying Police Investigation

18. After the assailants fled, police spoke to four eyewitness: Cooper, the driver; 

Sheenee Friend, an eyewitness to the robbery; and Emmett Wade and Terry Rogers, 

eyewitnesses to the chase. 

19. None of the witnesses identified either of the offenders at the scene and the case 

went cold. 

20. Five years later, in 1995, Defendants Jerome Bogucki and Raymond Schalk began 

investigating the Sorrell murder. They had not been involved in the original investigation.

21. Bogucki and Schalk re-interviewed Cooper in March of 1995. They showed 

Cooper a photo-array of potential suspects, including a man named Fletcher Clinton. Cooper was 

unable to identify any of the men as the assailant. 

22. Cooper told Bogucki and Schalk he believed Rogers knew one of the robbers. 

Cooper also told Bogucki and Schalk that he believed Rogers had a bad drug habit and may have 

been involved in the crime. Bogucki and Schalk then submitted a stop order for Rogers, which 

meant if he were arrested, he would be held in custody until they could interview him. 

The Investigation Into Fletcher

23. Nearly seven years later, in February of 2002, Rogers was arrested, in possession 

of incendiary material, for arson and criminal trespassing. He was also wanted by the Cook 

County Sheriff on a drug warrant.

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 4 of 40 PageID #:4
24. Defendants Bogucki, Schalk and Noradin interviewed Rogers the following day. 

He was a suspect in the Sorrell shooting, and Defendants questioned him about that crime 12 

years earlier. 

25. During the interview, Rogers falsely implicated Fletcher in the crime, claiming 

for the first time that he had recognized Fletcher as one of the perpetrators. 

26. Rogers’ statement implicating Fletcher was false and obviously unreliable, for 

multiple reasons that were known to the Defendants. First, the only eyewitness descriptions of 

the perpetrator were of someone with “shoulder-length, Jheri-curl” style hair, but police had 

evidence that at the time Fletcher had short, non-curly hair. 

27. Second, Rogers was not a credible witness. He had an extensive criminal history, 

pending criminal charges, and had already made several conflicting statements about the case 

between 1990 and 2002. Rogers, for example, told Defendants that he had known Fletcher for 

decades when interviewed in 2002. However, in 1990, he made no mention of Fletcher. 

28. Third, Cooper had told Bogucki and Schalk in 1995 that he suspected Rogers’ 

involvement in the crime, so Rogers had every incentive to shift the blame to another person.

29. Upon information and belief, Defendants struck an illegal and undisclosed deal 

with Rogers, wherein they declined to investigate or seek charges for arson, in exchange for his 

false statement implicating Fletcher. 

30. After Rogers implicated Fletcher, he was released without being charged for the 

arson and criminal trespassing. 

Defendants Fabricate and Falsify Evidence Against James Fletcher

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 5 of 40 PageID #:5
31. Instead of doing the police work necessary to solve the crime, the Defendants

focused solely on making a case against Fletcher and conspired amongst themselves to fabricate 

the evidence necessary to charge him with the crime. 

32. No physical evidence tied Fletcher to the scene. Nor was any incriminating 

evidence of any kind ever discovered in his possession. 

33. To overcome the lack of proof connecting Fletcher to the shooting, the 

Defendants manufactured “evidence” that falsely implicated Fletcher for the crime.

34. This fabrication of evidence included, but was not limited to, unlawfully 

manipulating witnesses to falsely implicate Fletcher, falsifying police reports, destroying 

evidence, and unconstitutionally depriving Fletcher of his right to counsel. 

35. None of these improper tactics were documented in police reports, or otherwise 

disclosed to Plaintiff. 

36. Defendant Wojcik – Detective Bogucki, Schalk, and Noradin’s supervisor –

participated in these actions, including by monitoring, directing, approving and ratifying them. 

Defendants Manipulate Witnesses to Build a False Case Against James Fletcher

37. After interviewing Rogers, Defendants re-interviewed the remaining witnesses to 

the Sorrell murder: Wade, Friend, and Cooper. 

38. While conducting these interviews, they manipulated and coerced Wade, Friend, 

and Cooper in an attempt to elicit false identifications of Fletcher as Mr. Sorrell’s murderer. 

39. Emmett Wade was interviewed by Defendants on March 12, 2002. At the 

interview, he was shown only a single photograph of Fletcher, and not a photo-array. The 

Defendants also told Wade that the man in the photograph was a “bad guy” they wanted to keep 

off the street. Despite pressure from Defendants, Wade did not identify Fletcher. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 6 of 40 PageID #:6
40. Wade had seen the perpetrators, and had told the detectives at the scene in 1990 

that he could identify the shooters if he saw them again. His refusal to identify the picture of 

Fletcher that Defendants showed him was therefore highly exculpatory.

41. Defendants deliberately concealed the fact that they conducted an identification 

procedure with Wade, the unlawful tactics they used to try to get him to identify Fletcher, and 

Wade’s refusal to identify Fletcher. 

42. For example, this information was omitted from their police reports. 

43. Instead, Defendants wrote a fabricated police report claiming that Wade did not 

see the faces of the perpetrators on the day of the robbery, implying that Wade would not have 

been able to identify – or refute an identification – of Fletcher as the offender.

44. Sheenee Friend was interviewed by Defendants Bogucki, Schalk and Noradin

while in custody for a parole violation on March 9, 2002. 

45. At the interview, she was shown a photo-array. When asked to identify the person 

who killed Mr. Sorrell, Friend pointed to someone other than Fletcher. In response, Defendants 

moved her finger to Fletcher’s photo and told her that was who did it.

46. Defendants also told Friend that Fletcher was a really bad, violent man, that 

needed to be kept off the streets.

47. The unlawful tactics used with Friend were not included in police reports and 

deliberately concealed by Defendants. 

48. In addition, the photograph the Defendants chose of Fletcher to show witnesses 

was unduly suggestive. Defendants knew that Fletcher’s appearance in 1990 did not fit the 

eyewitnesses’ initial physical description of the assailant. So, they deliberately used a photo of 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 7 of 40 PageID #:7
Fletcher that was taken in 2002, when he had a different hairstyle that looked more like the 

witnesses had initially described more than a decade earlier.

49. When Cooper was re-interviewed by Defendants on February 12, 2002, he was 

shown a photo-array which contained this same deceptive photograph of Fletcher. Despite the 

Defendants’ manipulation, Cooper told the Defendants that because the robbery had happened 

twelve years earlier he did not recognize anyone in the pictures.

50. The Defendants wrote a false police report concealing this information, and 

instead stated that Cooper picked out a photo of Fletcher and made a tentative identification of

him as the perpetrator. 

51. Defendant Wojcik participated in the investigative misconduct above, and signed 

off on and approved all of the false and misleading statements Defendants included in their 

reports 

Defendants Fabricate Positive Lineup Identifications By Conducting a Deliberately Tainted

Police Line-Up

52. Defendants then assembled a police line-up that included Fletcher and four other 

individuals. This line-up was viewed by Cooper and Friend. 

53. The line-up procedures were unconstitutional, unreliable and unduly suggestive. 

54. Defendants had already shown Fletcher’s photograph to Friend and Cooper and 

tried to get them to falsely implicate Fletcher. They knew Fletcher was the Defendants’ suspect.

55. Fletcher was the only person in the lineup whose photo the Defendants had 

previously shown to the witnesses. In addition, the individuals the Defendants chose to stand in 

the lineup with Fletcher did not have a similar appearance, causing Fletcher to stand out.

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 8 of 40 PageID #:8
56. And at the time of the line-up, Fletcher was represented by Attorney Jacqueline 

Gordon. On the day of the line-up, Gordon arrived at the police station and was prevented from 

seeing her client for approximately thirty-minutes. 

57. Gordon was eventually permitted to stand in the same room as Fletcher during the 

line-up procedure, but was not permitted to see or enter the witness room where Cooper and 

Friend were to view the lineup. 

58. According to Defendants, Friend and Cooper both selected Fletcher in a lineup. 

59. These identifications of Fletcher occurred only because the Defendants 

manipulated the eyewitnesses and caused them to falsely identify Fletcher. 

60. The fabricated reports and eyewitness identifications discussed above were used 

to falsely arrest, prosecute, and convict Fletcher of the Sorrell murder.

Defendants Attempt to Coerce James Fletcher into Confessing

61. Prior to his arrest, Fletcher was interviewed by Defendants Bogucki and Schalk.

62. Fletcher denied committing or participating in the murder of Willie Sorrell. 

63. Despite his denials, Defendants Bogucki and Schalk continued to pressure 

Fletcher to confess. Defendants Bogucki and Schalk also tried to coax Fletcher into becoming a 

police informant on their behalf, implying that they would drop him as a suspect in the Sorrell 

murder if he worked for them. 

64. Once Fletcher made it clear he would not confess or act as a police informant, 

they then threatened him. They told him if he did not confess or work for them, they would pin a 

false murder charge on him. 

65. The Defendants followed through on their threat. Soon after the Defendants left, 

Fletcher was arrested and charged for the murder of Willie Sorrell. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 9 of 40 PageID #:9
Policy and Practice of Wrongly Convicting Innocent Individuals

66. The Chicago Police Department is responsible, by virtue of its official policies, 

for inflicting miscarriages of justice in scores of incidents like the one endured by Fletcher.

67. Since 1986, no fewer than 150 cases have come to light in which Chicago police 

officers fabricated false evidence or suppressed exculpatory evidence in order to cause the 

convictions of innocent persons for serious crimes they did not commit. 

68. These cases include many in which Chicago police officers used the same tactics 

that Defendants employed against Plaintiff in this case, including fabricating evidence, 

concealing exculpatory evidence, manipulating witnesses in order to influence their eyewitness 

identifications and testimony, and using other tactics to secure the arrest, prosecution, and 

conviction of a person without probable cause and without regard for the person’s actual guilt or 

innocence. 

69. At all relevant times, members of the Chicago Police Department, including the 

Defendants in this action, routinely fabricated and manipulated identification procedures to 

procure suspect identifications that they knew to be inaccurate. 

70. The municipal policy and practice described in this Complaint was recently

described in a Federal Bureau of Investigation FD-302 Report of an interview with Assistant

State’s Attorney Terence Johnson. The Report documents, inter alia, that Chicago police

detectives would feed information to witnesses and coach them through court-reported and

handwritten statements, coerce witnesses into sticking to a detective’s theory of the case,

physically abuse witnesses, and work together to develop and rehearse false narratives so there

were no inconsistencies in the witnesses’ stories.

71. At all relevant times, members of the Chicago Police Department, including the 

Defendants in this action, systematically suppressed exculpatory and/or impeaching material by 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 10 of 40 PageID #:10
intentionally secreting discoverable reports, memos, and other information. This concealed 

material was kept in files that were maintained only at the police department and never disclosed 

to the participants of the criminal justice system. As a matter of widespread custom and practice, 

these clandestine files were withheld from the State’s Attorney’s Office and from criminal 

defendants, and they were routinely destroyed or hidden at the close of the investigation rather 

than being preserved as part of the official file. 

72. Consistent with the municipal policy and practice described in the preceding 

paragraph, employees of the City of Chicago, including the named Defendants, concealed 

exculpatory evidence from Plaintiff.

73. The existence of this policy and practice of suppressing exculpatory and/or 

impeaching material in clandestine files was established in the cases of, inter alia, Rivera v. 

Guevara, No. 12 C 4428 (N.D. Ill.), Fields v. City of Chicago, No. 10 C 1168 (N.D. Ill.), and 

Jones v. City of Chicago, No. 87 C 2536 (N.D. Ill.).

74. The policies and practices of suppressing exculpatory and/or impeaching evidence 

at issue in Rivera, Fields, and Jones applied throughout the timeframe from the 1980s through 

the 2000s, including at the time of the Sorrell murder and investigation at issue here. 

75. In addition, a set of clandestine files related to Area 5 homicides—the same 

Detective Division involved in this case—was found in the case of Rivera v. Guevara, No. 12 C 

4428 (N.D. Ill.). Those files, for a period in the 1980s and 1990s, contained exculpatory and 

impeaching evidence not turned over to criminal defendants. 

76. The policy and practice of suppressing exculpatory and/or impeaching material 

evidence was alive and well at all relevant times, including at the Area Five Detective Division, 

during the investigation into the Sorrell murder.

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 11 of 40 PageID #:11
77. In addition, the City of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department routinely 

failed to investigate cases in which Chicago police detectives recommended charging an 

innocent person with a serious crime, and no Chicago police officer has ever been disciplined as 

a result of his misconduct in any of those cases. 

78. Prior to and during the period in which Plaintiff was falsely charged with and 

convicted of the Sorrell murder, the City of Chicago also operated a dysfunctional disciplinary 

system for Chicago police officers accused of serious misconduct. The City almost never 

imposed significant discipline against police officers accused of violating the civil and 

constitutional rights of members of the public. Further, the disciplinary apparatus had no 

mechanism for identifying police officers who were repeatedly accused of engaging in 

misconduct. 

79. The U.S. Department of Justice recently issued a report finding that there were 

“engrained deficiencies in the systems CPD uses to provide officers with supervision and 

training.” In particular, on the subject of training, the DOJ concluded that the “CPD’s inattention 

to training needs, including a longstanding failure to invest in the resources, facilities, staffing, 

and planning required to train a department of approximately 12,000 members, leaves officers 

underprepared to police effectively and lawfully. Officer errors and misconceptions that result 

from lack of training are not corrected in the field, because CPD has neither structured 

supervision in a way that will adequately support officers, nor invested in programs and systems 

that will detect when officers are in need of help or exhibiting behavior that must be corrected. 

Officers’ ability to stay safe, protect public safety, and police within constitutional standards 

suffers as a result.”

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 12 of 40 PageID #:12
80. On the subject of supervision, the DOJ concluded among other things that 

“[i]nstead of encouraging the chain of command to instill proper policing tactics and respect for 

constitutional policing in CPD officers, CPD provides little incentive, or even opportunity, for 

supervisors to meaningfully guide and direct CPD officers. CPD provides even less incentive for 

supervisors to hold officers accountable when they deviate from CPD policy and the law. The 

City has long known that CPD’s direct supervision of officers is inadequate, including through 

the fact that multiple reports in the last two decades have highlighted deficiencies in CPD’s 

supervisory practices. Yet, City and CPD leadership have not made the necessary reforms to 

CPD’s supervision structure and processes, and community and officer safety suffer as a result.”

81. The DOJ “confirmed that CPD’s accountability systems are broadly ineffective at 

deterring or detecting misconduct, and at holding officers accountable when they violate the law 

or CPD policy.” In particular, the Department of Justice found that the City failed to investigate 

nearly half of misconduct complaints; where investigations did occur, there were “consistent 

patterns of egregious investigative deficiencies”; and where misconduct complaints were 

sustained, discipline was inconsistent and unpredictable.

82. Similarly, the Chicago Police Accountability Task Force reported in April 2016 

that “[g]oing back years, and continuing to the present day, CPD has missed opportunities to 

make accountability an organizational priority.” Between 2004 and 2016, the City paid more 

than $500 million to settle or pay judgments in police misconduct cases. The City recommended 

disciplinary action in fewer than 4% of those cases and did not conduct any disciplinary 

investigations in over half of those cases.

83. As a matter of both policy and practice, municipal policy makers and department 

supervisors condoned and facilitated a code of silence within the Chicago Police Department.

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 13 of 40 PageID #:13
Charlie Beck, the former interim superintendent of the CPD, recently acknowledged the 

existence of the CPD’s code of silence. In accordance with this code, officers refused to report 

and otherwise lied about misconduct committed by their colleagues, including the misconduct at 

issue in this case. 

84. Former Mayor of the City of Chicago Rahm Emanuel acknowledged during his 

tenure that a “code of silence” exists within the Chicago Police Department.

85. In December 2016, the president of the police officers’ union in Chicago admitted 

that there is a “code of silence” in the Chicago Police Department.

86. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice found that current officers of the CPD 

and former high-level officials of the CPD acknowledged a “code of silence.”

87. In the case of Klipfel v. Bentsen, No. 94 C 6415 (N.D. Ill.), a federal jury found 

that, as of 1994, the Chicago Police Department maintained a code of silence that facilitated 

police misconduct.

88. In Obrycka v. City of Chicago, No. 07 C 2372 (N.D. Ill.), a different federal jury 

found that, as of February 2007, “the City had a widespread custom and/or practice of failing to 

investigate and/or discipline its officers and/or code of silence.”

89. As a result of the City of Chicago’s established practices, officers (including the 

Defendants here) have come to believe that they may violate the civil rights of members of the 

public and cause innocent persons to be charged with serious crimes without fear of adverse 

consequences. The practices that enable this belief include failing to track and identify police 

officers who are repeatedly accused of serious misconduct, failing to investigate cases in which 

the police are implicated in a wrongful charge or conviction, failing to discipline officers accused 

of serious misconduct, and facilitating a code of silence within the Chicago Police Department. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 14 of 40 PageID #:14
As a result of these policies and practices of the City of Chicago, members of the Chicago Police 

Department act with impunity when they violate the constitutional and civil rights of citizens. 

90. This includes Defendants in this case. They engaged in such misconduct because 

they had no reason to fear that the City of Chicago and its police department would ever 

discipline them for doing so.

91. These Defendants also worked in Area 5 alongside Defendant Guevara, who has a 

long history of engaging in the kind of investigative misconduct that occurred in this case, 

including manipulating eyewitness identifications as well as fabricating and concealing evidence 

in the course of maliciously prosecuting innocent persons. There are dozens of known cases in 

which Guevara, his partners, his colleagues in the Area 5 Violent Crimes unit, and other Chicago 

police officers engaged in the serious investigative misconduct described above. They engaged 

in such misconduct because they had no reason to fear that their supervisors—including 

Defendant Wojcik and their other supervisors—would ever discipline them for doing so.

92. The City of Chicago and its police department also failed in the years prior to 

Fletcher’s conviction to provide adequate training to Chicago police detectives and other officers 

in many areas, including the following:

a. The conduct of live lineup, photographic, and other identification procedures.

b. Preserving material evidence, such as photographic arrays used for identification 

purposes; 

c. The constitutional requirement to preserve and disclose exculpatory evidence, 

including how to identify such evidence and what steps to take when exculpatory 

evidence has been identified in order to ensure that the evidence is made part of 

the criminal proceeding.

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 15 of 40 PageID #:15
d. The need to refrain from physical and psychological abuse, and manipulative and 

coercive conduct, in relation to suspects and witnesses. 

e. The risks of wrongful conviction and the steps police officers should take to 

minimize risks.

f. The risks of engaging in tunnel vision during investigation.

g. The need for full disclosure, candor, and openness on the part of all officers who 

participate in the police disciplinary process, both as witnesses and as accused 

officers, and the need to report misconduct committed by fellow officers. 

93. The need for police officers to be trained in these areas was and remains obvious. 

The City’s failure to train Chicago police officers as alleged in the preceding paragraph caused 

Fletcher’s wrongful conviction and his injuries. 

94. The city’s failure to train, supervise, and discipline its officers, including 

Defendants Bogucki, Schalk, and Noradin condones, ratifies, and sanctions the kind of 

misconduct that the Defendants committed against Fletcher in this case. Constitutional violations 

such as those that occurred in this case are encouraged and facilitated as a result of the City’s 

practices and de facto polices, as alleged above.

95. Moreover, Defendants’ supervisors and the City of Chicago also promoted 

officers that engaged in misconduct. Defendant Wojcik, for example, has been accused of 

misconduct by citizens of the City of Chicago on numerous occasions, as discussed below. He 

has been accused so many times that he ranks in the top 8% of officers in terms of the number of 

times he has been accused of misconduct. Yet, not only did he never suffer any meaningful 

discipline, he was promoted to a Sergeant, supervising other homicide detectives including the 

other Defendants in this case. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 16 of 40 PageID #:16
96. The City of Chicago and final policymaking officials within the Chicago Police 

Department failed to act to remedy the patterns of abuse described in the preceding paragraphs, 

despite actual knowledge of the pattern of misconduct. They thereby perpetuated the unlawful 

practices and ensured that no action would be taken (independent of the judicial process) to 

remedy Plaintiff’s ongoing injuries. 

97. The policies and practices described in the foregoing paragraphs were also 

approved the City of Chicago policymakers, who were deliberately indifferent to the violations 

of constitutional rights described herein.

Defendants’ History of Investigative Misconduct

98. The investigation into Fletcher was not the first instance of law enforcement 

abuse and/or misconduct that Defendants Boguck, Schalk, Noradin, and Wojcik engaged in. 

99. For example, in 2004, Defendants Bogucki and Schalk were placed in charge of 

an investigation into a police shooting, wherein several detectives under their supervision 

unlawfully detained and physically abused several bystanders who had witnessed the shooting. 

In the civil trial that commenced following that abuse, the jury returned a verdict against both 

Bogucki and Schalk, finding that “the alleged violations occurred under [Bogucki and Schalk]’s 

direction or with their knowledge and consent.” See Warfield v. City of Chicago, 679 F. Supp. 2d 

876, 893 (N.D. Ill. 2008). 

100. Detectives Bogucki was also the lead investigators in the wrongful conviction of 

Thaddaeus Jiminez in the early 1990s. Arrested at only 13 years of age, Jiminez was wrongfully

convicted and sentenced to 45 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. After being 

exonerated, Jiminez sued Bogucki, Schalk, and four other Chicago police officers, alleging that 

his wrongful conviction rested solely on fabricated evidence that Bogucki, Schalk, and the other 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 17 of 40 PageID #:17
officers manipulated and coerced. Specifically, Jiminez alleged that the officers used coercive 

tactics to make witnesses falsely identify Jiminez as the murderer. 

101. At trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Jiminez against Defendant Bogucki, 

and awarded him $25 million in compensatory damages. See Jimenez v. City of Chicago, 732 

F.3d 710, 712 (7th Cir. 2013).

102. The Seventh Circuit affirmed this finding of liability. On appeal, the court 

characterized the facts of the case as showing that Defendant Bogucki used coercive tactics to 

fabricate witness identifications. One example of this included Bogucki planting with witnesses 

the idea that the murderer was wearing a jacket that matched one owned by Jiminez. The court 

also described Bogucki’s decision to show a witness a picture of Jiminez prior to a line-up 

procedure as “tainting” the identification.

103. Furthermore, Defendants Bogucki and Noradin were accused of physically 

coercing Corky Terry into a false confession. In 2002, Terry was interrogated by Defendants 

Bogucki and Noradin in connection to a fatal shooting in his neighborhood. Terry repeatedly 

denied all involvement in the shooting, after which Bogucki and Noradin physically abused him 

until he agreed to give a videotaped statement admitting he committed the shooting. This 

physical abuse included: kicking, punching, grabbing by the hair, and hitting with a phonebook. 

People v. Terry, 2016 IL App (1st) 140555, ¶ 13, 57 N.E.3d 542, 545.

104. Defendant Noradin was also accused of helping cover-up the police shooting of 

an innocent man in 2015, Erick Fields. In 2011, Erick claims was shot in the stomach by a 

Chicago police officer, allegedly without provocation. While at the hospital, shortly after he had 

undergone emergency surgery, Defendant Noradin began questioning Erick about the incident. 

Erick alleges that Defendant Noradin ignored the information Erick conveyed to him, and instead 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 18 of 40 PageID #:18
relayed a false story to the Chicago Police Department, effectively depriving Erick of his 

constitutional rights. The case settled shortly before the jury trial was set to commence. Fields v. 

City of Chicago, 1:12-cv-01306 (N.D. Ill). 

105. Defendant Wojcik has a long history of engaging in precisely the kind of 

investigative misconduct that occurred in this case. In addition to several civil suits lodged 

against him and governmental investigations into his behavior, Defendant Wojcik is also among 

a small number of CPD officers with an extraordinarily high number of citizen complaints. At 

this moment, he has been accused of police misconduct through the citizen complaint process 44 

times. The misconduct sustained or alleged against Defendant Wojcik include: physical abuse, 

abusive interrogation techniques, obtaining false confessions through coercive interrogation 

techniques, concealing evidence in the course of investigating police misconduct or supervising 

misbehaving officers, refusing to investigate misconduct by other officers, fabricating evidence, 

forceful entry into complainants homes without a warrant, and the denial of individuals to their 

right to an attorney. 

106. Examples of Defendant Wojcik’s misconduct include: 

a. His false reporting on the misconduct of Detective Guevara, who himself has a 

long history of misconduct and abuse. In 2000, Detective Wojcik was assigned to 

investigate allegations made against Detective Guevara by a defendant named 

Juan Hernandez. Hernandez had filed a complaint stating that Guevara had 

framed him for a murder he did not commit, and used improper line-up techniques 

in the process. Defendant Wojcik stated in a report that Hernandez was not a 

reliable witness because Hernandez had not alleged Guevara had acted improperly 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 19 of 40 PageID #:19
at his criminal trial. This was not true; eight months before Defendant Wojcik’s 

report, Hernandez had raised that same issue in court. 

b. The role he played as “approving supervisor” in the investigation into Jason Van 

Dyke, who shot and killed Laquan McDonald in October 2014. As approving 

supervisor, he ratified police reports which later-released video revealed to be 

categorically false. These false police reports formed the foundation for what the 

State’s Attorney’s Office said was a “conspiracy to conceal the true facts of the 

events surrounding the killing of Laquan Mcdonald[.]” According to the State’s 

Attorney’s Office, these police reports “contained important false information in 

an attempt to prevent or shape any criminal investigation.” 

c. In 1988, the FBI registered a complaint against Defendant Wojcik with the CPD’s 

Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”). The FBI reported that it was 

conducting an investigation into the alleged extortion of a weapon from a FBI 

informant. This investigation included arranging the delivery of a firearm from 

the informant to Defendant Wojcik. The FBI discovered that the weapon’s 

telescopic sight had been removed, and not inventoried by Wojcik or returned to 

the owner. The OPS investigators concluded there was no evidence of extortion, 

but did find Wojcik failed to properly inventory the recovered property and had 

made a “false report” about the incident. 

d. In response to a lawsuit filed against the City of Chicago, OPS investigated eight 

officers including Defendant Wojcik for their involvement in a wrongful 

conviction. The suit alleged that in October 1988, these officers forced a Chicago 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 20 of 40 PageID #:20
citizen to sign a false confession following threats by Defendant Wojcik and 

others. 

e. In September 1989, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS alleging that Defendant 

Wojcik and others physically and verbally abused him. This included yelling "1 

am going to break your fucking arm" and proceeding to twist his arm behind his 

back until his elbow fractured. It also included throwing him to the ground and 

kicking him. 

f. In November 1989, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS alleging that Defendant 

Wojcik had pointed a gun at him, struck his car with a squad car, threw him and 

another individual to the ground, kicked him and another individual in the face, 

and punched him and two others in the face. 

g. In March 1991, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS alleging that Defendant 

Wojcik had punched him in the face during his arrest and while he was being held 

in an interrogation room. The citizen required medical attention at a hospital. 

Defendant Wojcik admitted to OPS investigators that he struck the citizen in the 

face, but claimed he did so "to control him" after he became violent. 

h. In September 1991, Gilbert Renslow sued Defendant Wojcik and the City of 

Chicago, among others, alleging excessive force. The City settled the matter for 

$3000. Renslow v. Chicago, No. 91 C 5560 (N.D. 111. Jan. 14, 1992)

i. Defendant Wojcik beat Roosevelt Myles in December 1992 and attempted to 

force him to falsely confess to a crime that he did not commit. Defendant Wojcik 

beat Roosevelt with a phone book and a flashlight while he was handcuffed to a 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 21 of 40 PageID #:21
wall and "kept slapping [him] until [he] said [he] will sign a statement." 

Defendant Wojcik likewise coerced witnesses into falsely identifying Roosevelt. 

j. On July 2,1994, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that Defendant 

Wojcik was verbally abusive and threatening during a traffic stop and proceeded 

to use his police car to push the complainant's car into a tree.

k. In 1994, OPS sustained an allegation against Defendant Wojcik for forcing entry 

into an ex-girlfriend’s home, striking the ex-girlfriend’s then-boyfriend on the 

head and face, and recommended that he be suspended. 

l. In April 1995, Angel Rosado was arrested and handcuffed to a wall in an 

interrogation room. Defendant Wojcik and another individual asked him about 

homicide. When Angel said he did not know anything about it, the detectives "got 

physical" and "repeatedly smacked" Angel and choked him. The abuse "went on 

for hours." Because Angel was "fatigued and tired of being roughed up" by 

Defendant Wojcik, he "finally went along with [the police] and made a 

statement." 

m. In October 1998 a citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that Defendant 

Wojcik had struck an individual on the head with a shotgun during an arrest. The 

victim was treated at the hospital for a laceration to the head, which he told 

doctors was caused by being struck with the shotgun. 

n. In August 1999, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that Detective 

Guevara had grabbed his face and arms, placed him into a headlock, and elbowed 

him while attempting to force him into a lineup. An OPS investigator himself 

further reported that Detective Guevara had "failed to provide for the safety and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 22 of 40 PageID #:22
security of [redacted] who was injured in his custody, and failed to seek medical 

treatment for him[.]" During this same incident, Defendant Wojcik struck the 

victim in the face five to ten times.

o. In March 2001, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS reporting that Defendant 

Wojcik slapped him multiple times on each side of the face, punched him in the 

stomach, kicked him when he fell to the floor, and grabbed him by the throat. 

Defendant Wojcik further refused to allow him to speak to an attorney.

p. In August 2001, Defendant Wojcik arrested Miguel Skerrett, and questioned him 

about a crime that had occurred at a grocery store. Miguel denied knowledge of 

the crime and asked to speak to a lawyer, but no lawyer was ever summoned. 

Wojcik would then interrogate Miguel for a second time, where he struck Miguel, 

pushed him up against a wall, punched him in the stomach, and kick him in the 

back after he fell to the ground. At that point Miguel told Defendant Wojcik he 

would be willing to cooperate with him, so long as he would stop hitting him. 

Defendant Wojcik then told Miguel what to say, and Miguel provided a false 

confession. 

q. In August 2001, Phonakone Sangathit was arrested and beaten by two Chicago 

Police detectives. Defendant Wojcik later came into the room and told Phonakone 

if he cooperated with the investigation, he would make sure that the Detectives –

Bella and Balodimas – would not hurt him or put his hands on him again. When 

Phonakone told Defendant Wojcik he knew nothing, that he was scared for his 

life, and that he wanted to call his lawyer, Defendant Wojcik told Phonakone to 

“"tell me the truth or I will get Bella and Balodimas back in here and they will 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 23 of 40 PageID #:23
beat you until you tell the truth." When Phonakone insisted he knew nothing 

about the crime, Defendant Wojcik punched him several times in the chest and 

back of the head, grabbed him by the neck and choked him while slamming his 

head into a wall. As a result, Phonakone "blacked out." When he woke up, 

Defendant Wojcik was standing in front of him and said "I'll just say you admitted 

something to me so they won't have to come back in here and beat you to death." 

r. In March 2004, a citizen filed an OPS complaint reporting he was placed in an 

Area 5 interrogation room in and Defendant Wojcik held him by the arms while 

another detective held his legs and a third punched him 15 to 20 times in the ribs. 

s. In July 2005, Janet Yurus was arrested by Defendant Wojcik and others. Janet 

repeatedly asked for a lawyer, but was denied. While being transported back to 

the station, Janet was placed unbuckled in the back of a police van. During the 

drive, he was knocked out of her seat, and suffered a laceration on her face. At the 

station Defendant Wojcik repeatedly promised Janet she would be released if she 

told the police "what they wanted to hear." Wojcik "threatened to lock [her] up 

and charge [her] with murder" for the death of her son, an unrelated incident that 

had already been determined to be an accident. Defendant Wojcik also threatened

to "lock up her daughter and call DCFS to have her grandchildren taken away."

t. In December 2007, a citizen filed a complaint with OPS alleging that he was held 

for three days by Defendant Wojcik without charges before he was released. 

u. In 2012, Defendant Wojcik was accused of false imprisonment by the decedent of 

Steven M. Dick. Steven’s special administrator alleged he was falsely charged by 

the Chicago Police on several misdemeanor counts, and was later granted a bond 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 24 of 40 PageID #:24
for his release. The administrator then alleged Defendant Wojcik refused Steven’s 

release, instead telling him that he would not be released unless he agreed to be 

admitted to a hospital for a mental condition. Finally, the administrator alleged 

that Defendant Wojcik drove Steven to the West Side Veterans Hospital, and 

sought to have him admitted as a psychiatric patient. The parties eventually 

settled the case. See Ellwood v. City of Chicago, 1:08-cv-04586 (N.D. Ill). 

v. Defendant Wojcik was also recently accused by Venus Rodriguez of covering up 

the physical assault of an off duty Chicago police officer. Venus was at a bar 

when the Defendant officer attacked her and a male companion. The investigation 

of the attack was assigned to Defendant Wojcik. However, instead of 

investigating the case, Venus alleges Wojcik actively deterred her from pursuing 

the internal investigation or any criminal charges against her attacker. The case is 

still ongoing. See Rodriguez v. City of Chicago, 1:17-cv-07248 (N.D. Ill). 

107. Many civilian complaints have also been filed against Defendants Bogucki, 

Schalk, and Noradin in connection with their actions as CPD officers. 

108. Defendants Bogucki and Schalk have twice been accused of police misconduct, 

with the first complaint accusing both of them of supervisory misconduct, and the second 

complaint co-accusing Defendants Bogucki, Schalk, Noradin, and Wojcik of conducting an 

illegal search of a civilian. 

109. Defendant Noradin has also been accused of police misconduct 11 times by 

civilian complainants. 

110. As set for above, the City of Chicago failed to meaningfully discipline its police 

officers, including Defendants Bogucki, Noradin, Schalk, and Wojcik, for their misconduct. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 25 of 40 PageID #:25
Defendants engaged in the misconduct set forth in this Complaint because they knew that the 

City of Chicago and its Police Department tolerated and condoned such conduct.

Plaintiff’s Wrongful Prosecution and Conviction

111. Between 2002 and 2005, as a result of the Defendants’ misconduct and based on 

the false evidence described in this Complaint, Fletcher was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted 

for murder. 

112. In the absence of Defendants’ misconduct, Fletcher would never have been 

arrested, indicted, prosecuted, or convicted. At no point in time between 2002 and the present 

day has there been any credible evidence giving rise to probable cause to suspect Fletcher of 

Willie Sorrell’s murder. 

113. The Defendants’ fabrication of evidence was not disclosed to the state prosecutors

who brought charges against Fletcher, Fletcher, or his criminal defense attorneys in advance of 

his criminal trial. In fact, Defendants suppressed all evidence that exonerated Fletcher. 

114. The Defendants used false police reports to cover up their misconduct. They 

provided those false reports to state prosecutors, and those reports became the basis for charging 

and prosecuting Fletcher. 

115. Defendants also destroyed evidence that would have exculpated Fletcher. 

116. Defendants also gave false statements to state prosecutors and Defendant Bogucki 

provided false testimony at Fletcher’s criminal trial. 

117. No inculpatory evidence other than the evidence fabricated by Defendants was 

introduced at Fletcher’s criminal trial. 

118. At all times, Defendants suppressed the true circumstances of their identification 

and lineup procedures. Upon information and belief, this included evidence that Rogers had 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 26 of 40 PageID #:26
worked as a police informant for the CPD in prior criminal cases, and may have received a 

benefit for testifying for the police in the past. This information was significant and material, and 

would have shown that Rogers had a reason to name a false assailant.

119. At all times, Defendant Wojcik was aware of Defendants’ misconduct and their 

fabrication of a case against Plaintiff. As a supervisor, he nevertheless intentionally ignored the 

Defendants’ misconduct and decided to make Plaintiff liable for a crime he did not commit, 

rather than directing the investigating officers to find the person who had actually committed the 

crime. In addition, Defendant Wojcik and the other supervisors of the Defendants explicitly 

authorized their investigative misconduct. 

120. In addition, upon information and belief, the Defendants suppressed and 

destroyed additional evidence still unknown to Plaintiff, which would also have shown 

Plaintiff’s innocence. 

121. Plaintiff maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings. 

122. However, because of Defendants’ false and manufactured evidence, Plaintiff was 

wrongfully convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Plaintiff’s Exoneration

123. Plaintiff fought hard to prove his innocence. He appealed, filed multiple petitions 

for state post-conviction relief, and filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

124. On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was granted, 

and his conviction was set aside. The Attorney General’s Office did not appeal the decision.

125. On January 30, 2020, the Cook County State’s Attorney dropped all charges 

against Fletcher. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 27 of 40 PageID #:27
126. At the time of his exoneration, Fletcher had been fighting the false charges against 

him over a decade. 

Fletcher’s Damages

127. Fletcher spent 13 years of his life in prison for a crime he did not commit.

128. After his conviction for the Sorrell murder, Fletcher was placed in a maximum 

security prison. His time in maximum security prison was defined by suffering and harsh 

conditions. For 13 years Fletcher was threatened and attacked by both guards and inmates, 

experienced physical injuries, and lived in constant fear of his life throughout his incarceration. 

129. Additionally, the emotional pain and suffering caused by the Defendants’ 

misconduct has been, and continues to be, substantial. 

130. Because of the Defendants’ misconduct, Fletcher was taken away from, and 

missed out on, the lives of his family and his friends. Fletcher was robbed of opportunities to 

gain an education, to engage in meaningful labor, to develop a career, and to pursue his interests 

and passions. Because of his wrongful incarceration, Fletcher was unable to spend time with his 

daughter and son. His mother passed away shortly after he was released, And he could not help 

care for his father, who has been suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. 

131. Fletcher has been deprived of all the basic pleasures of human experience, which 

all free people enjoy as a matter of right, including the freedom to live one’s life as an 

autonomous human being. 

132. Fletcher lived in constant emotional anguish, never knowing whether the truth 

would come out and whether he would ever be exonerated. 

133. In addition to the severe trauma of wrongful imprisonment and Fletcher’s loss of 

liberty, the Defendants’ misconduct continues to cause Plaintiff extreme physical and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 28 of 40 PageID #:28
psychological pain and suffering, humiliation, constant fear, nightmares, anxiety, depression, 

despair, rage, and other physical and psychological effects. Fletcher has also suffered profound 

and continuing reputational harm as a result of being labeled a murderer. 

COUNT I

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Due Process

(Fourteenth Amendment)

134. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here.

135. As described in detail above, the Defendants, while acting individually, jointly, 

and in conspiracy with one another, as well as under color of law and within the scope of their 

employment, deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional right to a fair trial and his right not to be 

wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.

136. In the manner described more fully above, Defendants fabricated police reports 

falsely implicating Plaintiff in the crime.

137. Defendants obtained Plaintiff’s conviction using this false evidence, and they 

failed to correct fabricated evidence that they knew to be false when it was used against Plaintiff 

during his criminal case.

138. Defendants also procured supposed eyewitness identifications implicating 

Plaintiff in the crime, by using unduly suggestive identification techniques during photo 

identifications and during live lineups. Defendants knew that these identifications were false and 

unreliable, but they caused them to be used during Plaintiff’s criminal trial. These fabricated 

identifications caused Plaintiff’s wrongful conviction.

139. In addition, Defendants deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence from state 

prosecutors, Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s criminal defense attorneys, including evidence that an 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 29 of 40 PageID #:29
eyewitness was shown a photo of Fletcher and did not identify him as the perpetrator, as well as 

evidence that Defendants had manufactured identifications, thereby misleading and misdirecting 

the criminal prosecution of Plaintiff.

140. In addition the Defendants concealed, fabricated, and destroyed additional 

evidence that is not yet known to Plaintiff. 

141. The Defendants’ misconduct resulted in the unjust and wrongful criminal 

prosecution and conviction of Plaintiff and the deprivation of Plaintiff’s liberty, thereby denying 

his constitutional right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Absent this 

misconduct, the prosecution of Plaintiff could not have and would not have been pursued.

142. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable, was 

undertaken intentionally, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence. 

143. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff suffered 

loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and 

suffering, forced and involuntary prison labor, and other grievous and continuing injuries and 

damages as set forth above.

144. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken pursuant to the policies 

and practices of the City of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department, in the manner more 

fully described below in Count V.

Count II

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Unlawful Detention

(Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments)

145. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here. 

146. In the manner described above, the Defendants, individually, jointly, and in 

conspiracy with one another, as well as under color of law and within the scope of their 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 30 of 40 PageID #:30
employment, accused Plaintiff of criminal activity and exerted influence to initiate, continue, and 

perpetuate judicial proceedings against Plaintiff without any probable cause for doing so and in 

spite of the fact that they knew Plaintiff was innocent, in violation of his rights secured by the 

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

147. In so doing, these Defendants caused Plaintiff to be deprived of his liberty without 

probable cause and subjected improperly to judicial proceedings for which there was no probable 

cause. These judicial proceedings were instituted and continued maliciously, resulting in injury.

148. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable, was 

undertaken intentionally, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.

149. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff suffered 

loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and 

suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set forth above.

150. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken pursuant to the policies 

and practices of the City of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department, in the manner more 

fully described below in Count V.

Count III

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Failure to Intervene

151. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here. 

152. In the manner described above, during the constitutional violations described 

herein, one or more of the Defendants stood by without intervening to prevent the violation of

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, even though they had the duty and the opportunity to do so.

153. As a result of the Defendants’ failure to intervene to prevent the violation of 

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Plaintiff suffered pain and injury, as well as emotional distress. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 31 of 40 PageID #:31
These Defendants had ample, reasonable opportunities as well as the duty to prevent this harm 

but failed to do so.

154. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable, was 

undertaken intentionally, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence. 

155. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff suffered 

loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and 

suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set forth above.

156. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken pursuant to the policies 

and practices of the City of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department, in the manner more 

fully described below in Count V.

Count IV

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights

157. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here. 

158. In the manner described more fully above, the Defendants, acting in concert with 

other co-conspirators, known and unknown, reached an agreement among themselves to 

fabricate evidence and to detain, prosecute, and convict Plaintiff for the Sorrell homicide, 

regardless of Plaintiff’s guilt or innocence, and thereby to deprive him of his constitutional 

rights.

159. In so doing, these co-conspirators agreed to accomplish an unlawful purpose by 

an unlawful means. In addition, these co-conspirators agreed among themselves to protect one 

another from liability for depriving Plaintiff of these rights. 

160. In furtherance of their conspiracy, each of these co-conspirators committed overt 

acts and were otherwise willful participants in joint activity. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 32 of 40 PageID #:32
161. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable, was 

undertaken intentionally, and in total disregard for the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.

162. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff suffered 

loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and 

suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set forth above.

163. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken pursuant to the policies 

and practices of the City of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department, in the manner more 

fully described below in Count V.

Count V

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Policy and Practice Claim against the City of Chicago

164. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here. 

165. As described in detail above, the City of Chicago is liable for the violation of 

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights because Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the policies, practices, 

and customs of the City of Chicago, as well as by the actions of policy-making officials for the 

City of Chicago.

166. At all times relevant to the events described in this Complaint and for a period of 

time prior and subsequent thereto, the City of Chicago failed to promulgate proper or adequate 

rules, regulations, policies, and procedures for: conducting photographic and live lineup 

procedures by officers and agents of the Chicago Police Department and City of Chicago; the 

conduct of interrogations and questioning of criminal suspects; the collection, documentation, 

preservation, testing, and disclosure of evidence; the writing of police reports and taking of 

investigative notes; obtaining statements and testimony from witnesses; and maintenance of 

investigative files and disclosure of those files in criminal proceedings. In addition or 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 33 of 40 PageID #:33
alternatively, the City of Chicago failed to promulgate proper and adequate rules, regulations, 

policies, and procedures for the training and supervision of officers and agents of the Chicago 

Police Department and the City of Chicago, with respect to these subjects.

167. These failures to promulgate proper or adequate rules, regulations, policies, and 

procedures were committed by officers and agents of the Chicago Police Department and the 

City of Chicago, including the Defendants.

168. In additional, at all times relevant to the events described in this Complaint and 

for a period of time prior thereto, the City of Chicago had notice of a widespread practice and 

custom by officers and agents of the Chicago Police Department and the City of Chicago under 

which individuals suspected of criminal activity, such as Plaintiff, were routinely deprived of 

their right to due process. For instance, it was common that suspects were prosecuted based on 

fabricated evidence, including fabricated eyewitness identifications and eyewitness 

identifications obtained using manipulated photographic or live lineup procedures.

169. Specifically, at all relevant times and for a period of time prior thereto, there 

existed a widespread practice and custom among officers, employees, and agents of the City of 

Chicago, under which criminal suspects were denied due process, including but not limited to 

one or more of the following: (1) suspects were selected during identification procedures by 

eyewitnesses who had been instructed by police on which suspect to identify; (2) suspects were 

shown suggestive photo arrays; (3) suspects were shown suggestive live lineups; (4) 

identification procedures were not accurately documented; and (5) supervisors with knowledge 

of permissible and impermissible identification techniques did not properly supervise or 

discipline police officers and employees such that the fabricated and improper identifications 

continued unchecked.

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 34 of 40 PageID #:34
170. In addition, at all times relevant to the events described in this Complaint and for 

a period of time prior thereto, the City of Chicago had notice of widespread practices by officers 

and agents of the Chicago Police Department and the City of Chicago, which included one or 

more of the following: (1) officers did not record investigative information in police reports, did 

not maintain proper investigative files, or did not disclose investigative materials to prosecutors 

and criminal defendants; (2) officers falsified statements and testimony of witnesses; (3) officers 

fabricated false evidence implicating criminal defendants in criminal conduct; (4) officers failed 

to maintain or preserve evidence or destroyed evidence; and (5) officers pursued wrongful 

convictions through profoundly flawed investigations.

171. These widespread practices, individually and together, were allowed to flourish 

because the leaders, supervisors, and policymakers of the City of Chicago directly encouraged 

and were thereby the moving force behind the very type of misconduct at issue by failing to 

adequately train, supervise, and control their officers, agents, and employees and by failing to 

adequately punish and discipline prior instances of similar misconduct, thus directly encouraging 

future abuses such as those affecting Plaintiff.

172. The above widespread practices and customs, so well settled as to constitute de 

facto policies of the City of Chicago, were able to exist and thrive, individually and together, 

because policymakers with authority over the same exhibited deliberate indifference to the 

problem, thereby effectively ratifying it.

173. As a result of the policies and practices of the City of Chicago, numerous 

individuals have been wrongly convicted of crimes that they did not commit.

174. In addition, the misconduct described in this Count was undertaken pursuant to 

the policies and practices of the City of Chicago in that the constitutional violations committed 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 35 of 40 PageID #:35
against Plaintiff were committed with the knowledge or approval of persons with final 

policymaking authority for the City of Chicago or were actually committed by persons with such 

final policymaking authority.

175. Plaintiff’s injuries were directly and proximately caused by officers, agents, and 

employees of the City of Chicago, including but not limited to the individually named 

Defendants, who acted pursuant to one or more of the policies, practices, and customs set forth 

above in engaging in the misconduct described in this Count.

COUNT VI

State Law – Malicious Prosecution

176. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here. 

177. In the manner described above, the Defendants, individually, jointly, and in 

conspiracy with one another, as well as within the scope of their employment, accused Plaintiff 

of criminal activity and exerted influence to initiate and to continue and perpetuate judicial 

proceedings against Plaintiff without any probable cause for doing so.

178. In doing so, the Defendants caused Plaintiff to be subjected improperly to judicial 

proceedings for which there was no probable cause. These judicial proceedings were instituted 

and continued maliciously, resulting in injury.

179. The judicial proceedings were terminated in Plaintiff’s favor and in a manner 

indicative of his innocence when his conviction was vacated and charges against him were 

dropped in December 2019.

180. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable and was 

undertaken intentionally, with malice, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear 

innocence.

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 36 of 40 PageID #:36
181. As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff 

suffered loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional 

pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT VII

State Law – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 

182. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here. 

183. The actions, omissions, and conduct of the Defendants as set forth above were 

extreme and outrageous. These actions were rooted in an abuse of power and authority and were 

undertaken with the intent to cause, or were in reckless disregard of the probability that their 

conduct would cause, severe emotional distress to Plaintiff, as is more fully alleged above.

184. As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff 

suffered loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional 

pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT VIII

State Law Claim – Willful and Wanton Conduct 

185. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here. 

186. At all times relevant to this Complaint the Defendants had a duty to refrain from 

willful and wanton conduct in connection with the Sorrell murder investigation. 

187. Notwithstanding that duty, the Defendants acted willfully and wantonly through a 

course of conduct that showed an utter indifference to, or conscious disregard of, Plaintiff’s 

rights.

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 37 of 40 PageID #:37
188. As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff 

suffered loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional 

pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT IX

State Law Claim – Civil Conspiracy 

189. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here.

190. As described more fully in the preceding paragraphs, the Defendants, acting in 

concert with other co-conspirators, known and unknown, reached an agreement among 

themselves to frame Plaintiff for a crime he did not commit and conspired by concerted action to 

accomplish an unlawful purpose and/or to achieve a lawful purpose by unlawful means. In 

addition, these co-conspirators agreed among themselves to protect one another from liability for 

depriving Plaintiff of these rights.

191. In furtherance of their conspiracy, each of these co-conspirators committed overt 

acts and were otherwise willful participants in joint activity.

192. The violations of Illinois law described in this complaint, including Defendants’

malicious prosecution of Plaintiff and their intentional infliction of emotional distress, were 

accomplished by Defendants’ conspiracy.

193. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable, was 

undertaken intentionally, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.

194. As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff 

suffered loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional 

pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set forth above.

COUNT X

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 38 of 40 PageID #:38
State Law Claim – Respondeat Superior

195. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here. 

196. While committing the misconduct alleged in the preceding paragraphs, the 

Defendants were employees, members, and agents of the City of Chicago, acting at all relevant 

times within the scope of their employment. 

197. Defendant City of Chicago is liable as principal for all torts committed by its 

agents. 

COUNT XI

State Law Claim – Indemnification Pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102

198. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully restated here.

199. Illinois statute (745 ILCS 10/9-102) provides that public entities are directed to 

pay any tort judgment for compensatory damages for which employees are liable within the 

scope of their employment activities.

200. The Defendants were employees, members, and agents of the City of Chicago, 

acting at all relevant times within the scope of their employment in committing the misconduct 

described herein.

201. The City of Chicago is responsible to pay any judgment entered against the 

Defendants. Plaintiff therefore demands judgment against Defendant City of Chicago, in the 

amounts awarded to Plaintiff against the individual Defendants as damages, attorneys’ fees, costs 

and interest.

***

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JAMES FLETCHER, respectfully requests that this Court enters 

a judgement in his favor and against Defendants JEROME BOGUCKI, ANTHONY NORADIN, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 39 of 40 PageID #:39
RAYMOND SCHALK, ANTHONY WOJCIK, UNKNOWN CITY OF CHICAGO POLICE 

OFFICERS, and the CITY OF CHICAGO, awarding compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, 

and costs against each Defendant, and, because they acted willfully, wantonly, and/or 

maliciously, punitive damages against each of the Individual Defendants, and any other relief 

that this Court deems just and appropriate. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, JAMES FLETCHER, hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable. 

JAMES FLETCHER

BY: /s/ Mariah Garcia

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Arthur Loevy

Jon Loevy

Anand Swaminathan

Mariah Garcia

LOEVY & LOEVY

311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60607

(312) 243-5900

mariah@loevy.com

Jennifer Blagg

1333 W. Devon Ave., Suite 267

Chicago, Illinois 60660

(773) 859-0081

jennifer@blagglaw.net

Case: 1:20-cv-04768 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 40 of 40 PageID #:40