IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

DEMETRIUS JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, 

v.

REYNALDO GUEVARA, et al., 

Defendants.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. 20 C 4156 

Hon. Sara L. Ellis, 

District Judge

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF DISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

 

Jon Loevy 

Anand Swaminathan 

Steve Art

Rachel Brady

Sean Starr

Alyssa Martinez 

Meg Gould 

Ruth Brown 

LOEVY + LOEVY 

311 N. Aberdeen St. 

Chicago, IL 60607 

(312) 243-5900 

steve@loevy.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 1 of 147 PageID #:51867
1 

I. Demetrius Johnson is Innocent

Demetrius Johnson did not kill Edwin Fred.

1. Plaintiff Demetrius Johnson was 15 years old in June 1991, when he was arrested 

for the shooting death of Edwin Fred. At the time, Johnson was in the ninth grade at Roberto 

Clemente High School and lived with his mother and siblings. Ex. 1 at RFC-Johnson 88 (listing 

Johnson’s age as 15 and his occupation as student at Clemente).

2. Johnson did not kill Edwin Fred, and had no involvement in the crime. Ex. 2 at 

¶15 (Answer). 

3. None of the following types of evidence connected Johnson to Mr. Fred’s death:

a. Defendants did not locate the murder weapon or connect Plaintiff to a 

weapon used in the shooting in any way. Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of such evidence 

in entire Fred police files).

b. There was no physical evidence—such as a fingerprint, a fiber, a shred of 

DNA evidence, or any other forensic evidence—that connected Johnson to the 

shooting. Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of such evidence in entire Fred police files). 

c. Johnson never confessed. Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of such evidence in 

entire Andujar police files); Ex. 5 at 108:6-8. 

Johnson Has Always Maintained His Innocence. 

4. Johnson proclaimed his innocence from the first time he was interrogated by the 

police on July 22, 1991. He steadfastly denied any involvement in the crime when he was 

interrogated by Defendants. Ex. 6 at RFC-Johnson 80; Ex. 2 at ¶15 (Interrogatory Response to 

Request No. 15); Ex. 5 at 108:6-109:13.

5. Johnson refused to enter into a plea deal of any kind in exchange for a shorter 

sentence and instead went to trial. See generally Ex. 7 (pleading not guilty); Ex. 8 (complete trial 

transcript).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 2 of 147 PageID #:51868
2

6. Johnson has repeatedly reaffirmed his claims of innocence since, including 

through his post-conviction proceedings, certificate of innocence proceedings, and this civil case. 

Ex. 2 at 11-12 (Answer to Request No. 15); Ex. 9.

Demetrius Johnson Had an Alibi.

7. The shooting at issue in this case occurred during the NBA Finals basketball 

game on June 12, 1991, the night the Bulls won their first NBA Championship. Ex. 8 at A-76:2-

8, A-126:16-18, A-161 (stipulation as to NBC records showing game was on at the time of the 

shooting), B-98:6-13.

8. At the time of the shooting, Demetrius Johnson was at his home, watching the 

Bulls championship game with his girlfriend, Magdalia Reyes, and other friends. Ex. 5 at 173:1-

22; Ex. 10 at A-133:16-134:11.

9. Two witnesses, Madalia Reyes and Elizabeth Martinez, both testified at Plaintiff’s 

criminal trial that they were with Demetrius Johnson, at his home, watching the Chicago Bulls 

clinch their first NBA Championship at the time the shooting occurred. Demetrius never left the 

house while the game was on television. The women had a particular memory of this day 

because they were not basketball fans, so they did not regularly watch basketball games but did 

so that evening. They also remembered that classmates, including Martinez's sister, were 

particularly invested in the Bulls winning that Wednesday night because if they did not win, the 

next game would have been on Friday, which was the Clemente High School graduation day and 

they would miss the game. Ex. 10 at A-129:7-13, A-133:5-22, A-147:13-A-149:1; Ex. 11 at A154:12-A-155:7.

Johnson’s Conviction Was Vacated, and Charges Against Him Were Dropped.

10. In November 2019, Johnson’s murder conviction was vacated. Ex. 12.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 3 of 147 PageID #:51869
3 

11. The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office then dropped all charges against 

Johnson. He was finally exonerated. Ex. 13.

Johnson was Certified Innocent by the State of Illinois.

12. On June 19, 2020, Johnson filed a petition for a certificate of innocence. The State 

responded to the petition by acknowledging that Defendants’ suppression of the Erickson lineup 

report was an “obvious Brady violation.” Ex. 9; Ex. 294 at 7.

13. On April 7, 2021, Johnson was certified innocent by the State of Illinois. Cook 

County Circuit Court Judge Erica Reddick wrote: “And key evidence that established that as a 

result of actions taken by this particular Detective [Guevara], that there was strong evidence to 

believe that a key report, indicating a witness, an eyewitness, Aby Gonzalez, had actually 

identified a different person as the actual shooter of Edwin Fred, as well as Mr. Ortiz. That 

information was not revealed to the defense, and as a result of other information— important 

information about the actions of this particular Detective, and the numerous cases that his actions 

impacted negatively, wherein individuals were accused and convicted, based on information, it 

was determined was wrongfully withheld . . . as it pertains to this case, the particular evidence 

and information showed that there was key evidence that was hidden and not revealed, that 

would likely have made a difference in the trial result.” Ex. 13; Ex. 14 at Johnson 1002-03.

II. The Shooting of Edwin Fred and Raul Ortiz

14. Around 7:45 p.m. on June 12, 1991, Edwin Fred was shot and killed. Raul Ortiz 

was shot and injured. They were near 2345 W. North Avenue, by the door to a building facing 

North toward North Avenue, west of Claremont. Ex. 15; Ex. 16 at RFC-Johnson 48..

15. The patrol officers at the scene identified four witnesses: Aby Gonzalez, Stanley 

Jewell, Fina Martinez, and Omar Ortiz, all four of whom indicated that they had seen the 

shooting and had seen the perpetrator shoot the victims. Aby Gonzalez and Omar Ortiz were 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 4 of 147 PageID #:51870
4

particularly close to the victims and the perpetrators when the shooting occurred. Aby reported to 

police he had come face to face with the shooter right before he shot. And Omar reported that he 

was so close to one of the victims that the victim almost fell on top of him when he was shot. Ex. 

15.

16. The description the patrol officers recorded was that the first offender was a Black 

male, age 17, and that the second was a Latino male of the same age, 5’6”, 150 pounds, with 

black hair and dark complexion, wearing a white T-shirt and gray shorts. Ex. 15. 

17. None of these four witnesses ever identified Johnson as the perpetrator. In fact, 

Omar Ortiz is not mentioned in any other report and there is no indication that Defendants ever 

spoke with him after the patrol officers’ initial interview, despite the fact that he had been with 

Fred at the time of the shooting. Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of such evidence in the entire police 

file).

18. Defendant Reynaldo Guevara was assigned to investigate the case and 

interviewed several eyewitnesses immediately. Guevara submitted a report dated June 13, 1991, 

documenting his interviews with witnesses. His report listed the witnesses to the shooting as the 

victim Raul Ortiz, as well as Aby Gonzalez, Fina Montanez, Stanley Jewell, Rosa Burgos, and an 

additional witness named Forrest Garnett, who also had been with Fred at the time of the 

shooting and saw him shot. Ex. 16; Ex. 17 at B-35:13-24, B-39:9-22, B-41:7- 42:3, B-47:1-

50:15.

19. Guevara’s June 13 report documented interviews with only the victim Raul Ortiz, 

Aby Gonzalez, and Forrest Garnett. Raul Ortiz described the shooting and said he saw a person 

run southbound on Claremont, but he could not provide additional information. Aby Gonzalez 

described the shooter as a Black male, and he said that the shooter had put the gun in his 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 5 of 147 PageID #:51871
5

waistband after the shooting, before running south of Claremont and west on LeMoyne (one 

block south of North). Forrest described the shooter as a Black male but could provide no 

additional information. Guevara’s report contains no further description of the perpetrators. 

Ex. 16. 

20. Guevara admitted at trial that he interviewed Rosa Burgos, Fina Montanez and 

Stanley Jewell on the night of the shooting. Indeed, Rosa Burgos and Fina Montanez were both 

at Area 5 on the night of the shooting to view a lineup conducted by Guevara and Erickson. 

However, Guevara’s June 13 report did not document any interview of Fina Montanez, Stanley 

Jewell, or Rosa Burgos. Ex. 17 at Johnson B-41:7-11, B-47:1-48-3 (testifying about who he 

interviewed that night); Ex. 18 (Fina and Rosa at Area 5 night of shooting viewing lineup); 

Ex. 16 (absence of any documentation of interviews of Fina, Rosa, and Stanley).

21. Stanley Jewell is not mentioned in any other report after Guevara’s June 13 

report, and there is no indication that Guevara or any of the other Defendants ever documented 

an interview of Stanley, despite the fact that he had been with Fred at the time of the shooting. 

Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of such information in the entire police file).

22. Other than Rosa Burgos, none of these witnesses—Omar Ortiz, Raul Ortiz, Aby 

Gonzalez, Fina Montanez, Forrest Garnett, Rosaline Morales, and Stanley Jewell—ever 

identified Plaintiff as the perpetrator. In fact, Defendants never conducted identification 

procedures of Plaintiff with these seven eyewitnesses who had been in close proximity to the 

shooter, including the surviving victim Raul Ortiz. Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of any such 

identifications in the entire police file).

23. That same night Defendants learned of a likely perpetrator named Bryan Johns. 

According to Defendant Guevara’s police report: “The RD then learned that...a person [was 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 6 of 147 PageID #:51872
6 

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”.” Ex. 16 at RFC-Johnson 52.

III. Defendant Daley Develops Strong Evidence That Bryan Johns Was the Perpetrator 

24. Initial simulcast 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. Ex. 19 at RFC-Johnson 44; Ex. 15 at 

RFC-Johnson 38 (second offender was male Hispanic). 

25. Officer 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 from the area 

near the shooting, immediately suspected Johns committed the shooting. Daley had also seen 

Johns in the area about an hour before the shootings. Ex. 19; Ex. 20 at B-23:4-13 (“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. 21 at 78:8-80:25, 

85:24-87:11.

26. Johns was a 15-year old Black male, consistent with the limited descriptions of 

the shooter that had been provided to date. Ex. 21 at 79:3-8.

27. Daley drove to the location he had seen Johns earlier, an area Johns was known to 

frequent. Daley observed Johns along with two Latino males, Elliott Berverena, and Jose 

Medina. Ex. 19.

28. Daley observed Berverena and Medina, followed by Johns, exit a black van and 

rapidly cross the street toward a building at 1652 N. Talman. Ex. 19.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 7 of 147 PageID #:51873
7

29. Johns was apprehended before he could enter the building. Berverena and Medina 

went into the building, but eventually came out of the building and were stopped as well. They 

were all arrested and transported to Area 5 Detective Division. Ex. 19; Ex. 20 at B-26:6-19, 

B-27:6-16.

30. Defendant Daley wrote and signed a report memorializing these events, dated 

June 13, 1991. Ex. 19.

Search of the Black Van Johns Had Exited Revealed Two Handguns.

31. The black van Johns and the other two men had exited before rapidly approaching 

the building was searched, revealing two handguns: (1) a .25 caliber, and (2) a 380-9mm Kurz. 

Ex. 19 (describing a “2-inch chrome AMT .25 cal handgun secreted under a vinyl covering for 

the motor cover”); Ex. 22 at RFC-Johnson 82 (describing a “AMT 380-9mm Kurz semi-auto. 

Pistol with 4” barrel stainless S[teel]” found on the front floor of the van).

32. The 2-inch chrome AMT .25 caliber handgun was not inventoried. There is no 

evidence report, crime scene processing report or other report documenting that the .25 caliber 

handgun was inventoried, or that it was ever tested or analyzed. Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of such 

information in the police files).

33. When Berverena and Medina went inside the building at 1652 N. Talman, they 

were out of sight of Daley and other officers. They could have stashed or dropped off a weapon 

at that location without being seen. Ex. 21 at 80:22-84:14, 185:5-187:1, 195:19-24, 196:10-13.

34. No search warrant was ever sought and no search was ever executed at 1652 N. 

Talman to locate any weapons that could be matched to the bullets and casings from the Fred 

shooting. Ex. 21 at 196:10-198:1; Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of such information in the police files).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 8 of 147 PageID #:51874
8 

35. Defendants took no steps to match the second gun found in Johns’ van to the 

crime scene evidence. Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of such information in the police files); Ex. 23 at 

9-10.

IV. Witnesses Identify Bryan Johns in a Lineup

36. About three hours after the shootings, several witnesses viewed a lineup in which 

Bryan Johns was the suspect. Six witnesses viewed the lineup between 10:37 p.m. on June 12, 

1991 and 1:15 a.m. the next morning. Ex. 18.

Three Eyewitnesses Identify Johns

37. Three witnesses who viewed the lineup identified Johns. Rosa Burgos testified 

that after three individuals had identified Johns, they were told by the police that Johns was the 

wrong guy. Ex. 24 at B-12:2-18; Ex. 25. 

Defendant Erickson Writes a Lineup Report Documenting One of the Three Identifications of 

Johns 

38. Defendant Erickson wrote a police report documenting the lineup. Six individuals 

viewed the lineup: Aby Gonzalez, Forrest Garnett, Fina Montanez, Rosaline Morales, Angel 

Cordova, and Rosa Burgos. Daliz Bergangzo, victim Edwin Fred’s aunt, is listed as present for 

the lineups of Montanez and Morales. Ex. 18.

39. Erickson’s lineup report identified that Defendant Guevara helped conduct the 

lineup. Ex. 18. 

40. Erickson’s lineup report documents that on June 12, 1991 at 2243 hours, Aby 

Gonzalez identified Bryan Johns as the shooter. Ex. 18.

41. Aby Gonzalez had been previously interviewed by Defendant Guevara about what 

he had seen and observed. Gonzalez stated that he was standing on the corner when he saw a 

Black male running toward him. He saw the man stop, pull out a gun, and “pointed it at him and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 9 of 147 PageID #:51875
9

stood there for several seconds.” The gunman then ran to where Edwin Fred was standing, shot 

Fred and Raul Ortiz, and then ran past Gonzalez a second time as the gunman fled. Ex. 16 at 

RFC-Johnson 52.

42. Detective Erickson’s lineup report was submitted on June 13, 1991 at 5 p.m. and 

placed in the investigative file. Ex. 3 & id. at RFC-Johnson 26. The box for the date the report 

was approved is blank. Erickson’s signature on the report is as follows: 

Ex. 18 at RFC-Johnson 26.

Corroboration of the Veracity of the Erickson Report

43. 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). Ex. 18.

44. CPD reports show Hobbs, Brown, and Wells were all arrested on June 12 or 13, 

1991, with the same arrest numbers as listed on Erickson’s report. Ex. 26 at RFC-Johnson 25907 

(Hobbs), RFC-Johnson 25904 (Brown), RFC-Johnson 25931 (Wells). 

45. Two of the fillers confirmed that they did indeed stand in a lineup that night. 

Terrell Agee swore that he stood in the lineup with Johns. And Fabian Wells also stood in a 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 10 of 147 PageID #:51876
10 

lineup in 1991 on the same night the Chicago Bulls won their first championship. Ex. 27; Ex. 28 

at 77:14-78:22; Ex. 29. 

46. Johnson acknowledges that Johns told him that Johns had committed the Fred 

murder and that Johns had been identified in a lineup in connection with the Fred murder. Ex. 5 

at 306:19-308:14. In addition, some time later on, Johns told Agee that Johns had been identified 

in the lineup that took place that night. Ex. 27; Ex. 28 at 77:14-78:22.

47. An initial scene supplementary report written by Defendant Guevara, submitted 

on June 13, states that Aby Gonzalez was interviewed and “viewed a line up in [Area 5] which is 

the subject of a separate report.” The report also identifies “Evidence” and lists, “Photos of 

lineup, subject to separate Supp. report.” Ex. 16 at RFC-Johnson 50, 52. 

48. Guevara’s June 13 supplementary report, was submitted for supervisor approval 

on June 13, 1991, approved the same day, and received in central record on June 18. Ex. 16.

49. Photos are taken of lineups that result in positive identifications. If it is a negative 

lineup, meaning there is no positive identification during the lineup, then the lineup is not 

photographed. Ex. 30 at Foster 4 (“take two photographs of any formal lineup which results in 

the identification of a suspect”); Ex. 17 at B-71:19-22 (Guevara’s criminal trial testimony: “[no] 

photos are taken in a negative lineup.”).

50. Aby Gonzalez has stated that at the time of the Fred shooting, he knew Johns. Ex. 

32 at Johnson 911-914.

51. 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 identified someone as the shooter on the night of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 11 of 147 PageID #:51877
11 

shooting. Ex. 31 at 88:17-90:20; Ex. 32 at Johnson 911-912 (Tepfer Report detailing that 

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

52. Aby Gonzalez testified at his deposition that he was not disputing the information 

contained in the Erickson police report documenting his positive identification. Ex. 33 at 44:4-

45:22; 55:10-15, 77:14-78:2.

V. Guevara, Erickson, and Daley Fabricate Reports Concealing that Johns Had Been 

Identified

53. A different lineup report written by Defendant Guevara (the “Guevara lineup 

report”) also states that he and Defendant Erickson conducted a lineup on the night of the 

shooting with Johns as the suspect. The report contains signatures for both Guevara and 

Erickson. Ex. 34.

54. This report states that four witnesses viewed this lineup, including Aby Gonzalez, 

Forrest Garnett, Fina Montanez, and Rosa Burgos—four of the same people who are listed in 

Erickson’s lineup report. Compare Ex. 34 with Ex. 18. 

55. According to the Guevara lineup report, all four witnesses viewed the lineup and 

the results were negative. Ex. 34.

56. In other words, Erickson’s lineup report says that Aby Gonzalez viewed the 

lineup containing Johns and positively identified him. Guevara’s lineup report says that Aby 

Gonzalez viewed the lineup containing Johns and did not identify him. Compare Ex. 34 with 

Ex. 18.

57. According to the Guevara lineup report, Johns was the suspect, but the four fillers 

were different than those listed in Erickson’s report. Compare Ex. 34 with Ex. 18.

58. The four fillers listed on the Guevara lineup report are: Dewan Patterson, Carlos 

McFadden, Dwayne David, and Michael Robinson. CPD has no documents for any individuals 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 12 of 147 PageID #:51878
12

named Dwayne David. The criminal histories of Patterson and McFadden show that they were 

not arrested in June of 1991. Ex. 34 at RFC-Johnson 42; Ex. 26 at RFC-Johnson 25924 (no June 

1991 arrests for Patterson), RFC-Johnson 25916-17 (no June 1991 arrests for McFadden).

59. One of the individuals listed as a filler in Guevara’s report, Carlos McFadden, has 

sworn under oath that he never stood in a lineup. Ex. 35.

60. Defendant Guevara’s lineup report is marked “Permanent Retention File.” It lists 

a date submitted of June 12, 1991 at 11 p.m., but it was not approved by the Sergeant until July 

24, 1991, and the date stamp on the report reflects that it was first received in central records on 

July 25, 1991. Defendant Guevara and Detective Erickson are listed as reporting officers. The 

signatures and stamps on Guevara’s lineup report are as follows:

Ex. 34.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 13 of 147 PageID #:51879
13

61. Every other report that lists a June 12 or June 13 date of submission was approved 

by a Sergeant the same day, and stamped as received in central records by June 16, 1991. Ex. 4 

at RFC-Johnson 44-45 (submitted and approved June 13, stamp on second page shows received 

in central records June 14), 46-52 (submitted and approved June 13, stamp near bottom of each 

page page shows received in central records June 18), 54-57 (submitted June 13, approved June 

15, stamp near bottom shows received in central records on June 18).

62. Defendant Guevara’s report is contained in the Permanent Retention File. Ex. 36 

at 4 (noting the CPD’s Permanent Retention File is Bates stamped RFC-Johnson 38-87); Ex. 34 

(Bates of Guevara lineup report is RFC-Johnson 40-43, within the range of the CPD Permanent 

Retention File, and containing “Permanent Retention File” stamp). 

63. Guevara’s lineup report was disclosed to prosecutors. Ex. 37 at CCSAO 7 

(providing that the 6/12/91 lineup with “Little D” had “no ID”); Ex. 38 at 86:20-88:24; 90:11-91; 

Ex. 39 at 36:7-37:17 (Guevara lineup report with negative ID was part of the tendered file to 

State’s Attorney and ASA Sheehan based his closing argument on it).

64. Defendant Daley wrote a report dated June 13, 1991 stating that a lineup had been 

conducted and that “no one was able to make a positive identification,” and so Johns was 

released. Ex. 19.

65. There is no police justification for why two lineups featuring the same suspect 

would be conducted with the same eyewitnesses at nearly the same time. Ex. 23 at 19; Ex. 21 at 

169:12-25.

66. Johns was released after the lineup without charging. There is no documentation 

of a single interview or interrogation of Johns. There is no evidence detectives made any effort to 

learn what Johns knew, what alibi he could provide, or any other information about his possible 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 14 of 147 PageID #:51880
14 

involvement in, or knowledge about, the crime. Ex. 34 at RFC-Johnson 42 (“Johns was released 

with out charging.”); Ex. 16 (absence of such information in June 13 initial scene report when 

Johns was in custody); Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of such information in the entire police files).

VI. The Erickson Lineup Report Was Not Disclosed to the Prosecution or Defense

67. Detective Erickson’s lineup report is not in the Permanent Retention File. And, 

Erickson’s report does not have a Permanent Retention File stamp. Ex. 18; Ex. 36 at 4 (noting 

the CPD’s Permanent Retention File is Bates stamped RFC-Johnson 38-87); Ex. 4 (absence of 

report in Permanent Retention File).

68. Under CPD policy, the lineup report was supposed to be included in the 

Permanent Retention File. Ex. 40 at RFC-Johnson 26277-79 (CPD Standard Operating Policy 

86-3).

69. Defendant Erickson’s lineup report was found in the Investigative File kept at the 

Area Five Detective Division during litigation in Rivera v. Guevara. Ex. 18; Ex. 36 at 4 (noting 

the CPD’s Investigative File is Bates stamped RFC-Johnson 1-37); Ex. 3 (existence of report in 

Investigative File); Ex. 41 at Johnson 812-13, 814.

70. The Investigative File contains a note to Halvorsen from prosecutor Sheehan 

instructing Halvorsen to “bring file.” Ex. 3 at RFC-Johnson 12. 

71. Through the time of his conviction, Johnson had no knowledge whatsoever of the 

existence of the Erickson lineup report or the information contained in it. Ex. 2.

72. Johnson’s criminal defense counsel sent subpoenas and motions for discovery to 

the Police Department and the prosecutor’s office to obtain all police reports and other evidence 

developed by the Chicago Police Department including any “street files.” Ex. 42 (subpoenas); 

Ex. 43 at 11:6-12:21, 15:23-18:16.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 15 of 147 PageID #:51881
15

73. Johnson’s original defense attorney, Jack Carey, sent a motion for discovery 

requesting the prosecution inform him “as to whether any person has identified anyone other 

than the accused as the perpetrator or participant in the offense charged.” Ex. 44 at Impound 

Evidence 331.

74. Johnson’s criminal defense attorneys, former Cook County Judge Deborah Gubin 

and now-federal Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller, also testified unequivocally that they never had 

Erickson’s lineup report. Former Judge Gubin testified that the 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.” Judge Miller testified that she is “absolutely certain” the 

defense never had the lineup report at any time during the criminal proceedings. Ex. 43 at 34:20-

35:2; Ex. 45 at 75:11-18; 27:4-27:14.

75. Former Cook County Judge Kevin Sheehan, who was the trial prosecutor, 

testified unequivocally that the Erickson’s lineup report was never disclosed to the prosecution:

Q. And does the information in the transcripts we just reviewed, 

including your closing argument, confirm to you or give you 

confidence that you had not been provided a copy of [the Erickson 

Report of the 6/12/91 Lineup)?

A. It’s not the argument that gives me confidence. What gives me 

confidence is the truth, I never got it.

Ex. 39 at 43:7-15 (emphasis added); see also id., at 39:7-24 (“I’ve never seen this document at 

the time of the trial. This is the first time I’ve seen that document with the person getting picked 

out.”).

76. Prosecutor Sheehan’s handwritten notes in the prosecutor file also indicate that he 

was told by Guevara that the June 12 lineup resulted in “no ID.” Ex. 37 at CCSAO 7 (providing 

that the 6/12/91 lineup with “Little D” had “no ID”); Ex. 39 at 45:14-20 (his note referred to the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 16 of 147 PageID #:51882
16

6/12/91 negative lineup report), 48:12-17 (received information in the State’s Attorney file that 

there was no ID of Johns in the lineup report).

77. If Prosecutor Sheehan would have had the Erickson lineup report, he would have, 

without question, turned it over to the defense immediately. Ex. 39 at 39:25-40:12 (“Q: If you 

would have had this [Erickson lineup report], you would have turned it over to the defense, 

right? A: Immediately. . . . Q: And you’re certain that you would have turned it over, right? 

A: Without question.”). 

78. Erickson’s report is not in the permanent retention file, the prosecutor’s file 

produced by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, and was not disclosed to Johnson or his 

criminal defense attorneys. Ex. 32; Ex. 23 at 14.

79. At Johnson’s criminal trial, Guevara testified with his version of the lineup report, 

and contrary to Erickson’s version: Guevara testified that Gonzalez and other eyewitnesses did 

not identify Johns. Guevara never acknowledged the existence of a separate lineup report written 

by Erickson stating that the lineup Guevara and Erickson conducted did result in the 

identification of Johns. Ex. 17 at B-73:22-74:9 (“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.”) (emphasis added).

80. At the criminal trial, the Erickson report was not used in cross examination, and in 

fact there was no mention or reference at all to the Erickson lineup report, or a positive 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 17 of 147 PageID #:51883
17 

identification of Johns by Aby Gonzalez or by any other witness. Ex. 8 (absence of such mention 

or reference in the entire trial transcript).

81. The Erickson report was not referenced during Johnson’s direct appeal or his 

post-conviction petition filed in 1996. In fact, Johnson’s 1996 post-conviction petition explicitly 

asserted his innocence, but nowhere in that petition did Johnson mention the Erickson lineup 

report or the information contained in it. Ex. 46; Ex. 47.

VII. Defendant Guevara Does Not Deny That He Wrote a Fabricated Lineup Report and 

Suppressed Evidence of Aby Gonzalez’s Identification

82. When Defendant Guvara was asked whether in fact witnesses had identified Johns 

on the night of the shooting, and whether he concealed that fact by creating a false lineup report 

claiming that Aby Gonzalez (and other witnesses) did not select Bryan Johns, he invoked his 

Fifth Amendment right. Ex. 38 at 45:2-12 (“Q. In fact, at least three people who viewed that 

lineup identified Johns as the shooter, didn't they? A. I plead the Fifth. Q. And you told them that 

they got the wrong person, right? A. I plead the Fifth.”), 18:25-19:7 (“Q: And one of the ways 

you concealed this critical evidence from Demetrius Johnson is that you created a false lineup 

report claiming that Aby Gonzalez and the other eyewitnesses did not select Bryan Johns from 

the lineup, right? A: I plead the Fifth.”) 

83. When asked whether he concealed the fact that Aby Gonzalez viewed the lineup 

and identified Johns, Defendant Guevara pleaded the Fifth. Ex. 38 at 18:13-18 (“Q: And you 

concealed the fact that Aby Gonzalez viewed the lineup on the night of the crime and that he 

selected Brian Johns, correct? A: I plead the Fifth.”), 19:8-20 (“Q: And in addition to creating a 

false lineup report, you hid the real lineup report written by another detective which stated that 

Aby Gonzalez had selected Bryan Johns, right? A: I plead the Fifth. Q: You buried that real 

lineup report so that it would never be seen by the prosecutors and criminal defense, didn’t you? 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 18 of 147 PageID #:51884
18 

A: I plead the Fifth.”), 44:21-45:1 (“Q: And you concealed Aby Gonzalez’s identification of 

Johns for decades, didn’t you?” A: I plead the Fifth.”), 106:14-23 (“Q. And you also falsely 

testified that Aby Gonzalez did not view a lineup on the night of the shooting, didn't you? A. 

Take the Fifth. Q. So you knew Aby had viewed a lineup and picked out Bryan Johns, didn't 

you? A. Take the Fifth.”). 

VIII. Defendants Suppressed the Identifications of Johns and Released Him Because He 

Was Cooperating with Defendants in a Different Homicide Investigation 

84. At the time he was identified in the Fred investigation, Johns was a cooperating 

witness who was working with Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen, so they were protecting him. 

Ex. 38 at 36:4-37:20 (“Q. Was Bryan Johns cooperating with you on other investigations? 

A. Plead the Fifth. Q. Were you conspiring with Bryan Johns as part of a criminal enterprise? 

A. Plead the Fifth.”), 48:15-2. 

85. Defendant Halvorsen was involved in investigating the June 10, 1990 shooting 

death of Ramon Pagan. After initial investigation into the Pagan homicide came up with no 

leads, Area Five detectives found a new witness who was not identified in any of the original 

reports—Bryan Johns. Defendant Halvorsen interviewed Johns and allegedly learned that the 

shooter was a man known as “Baby Face.” Halvorsen then conducted a lineup in which Johns 

purportedly identified Jose Baez, resulting in charges against Baez. Ex. 48 at 162766-68 

(supplementary report reflecting Johns not initial witness), RFC162775-778 (supplementary 

report reflecting Johns became witness week later), RFC162779-162786 (supplementary reports 

showing Halvorsen arrests Baez and obtains Johns’ identification of Baez).

86. The prosecution of Baez was ongoing at the time of the Fred homicide 

investigation. Johns was called as the key prosecution witness in the Baez case, on July 17, 1991, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 19 of 147 PageID #:51885
19 

just over a month after he was arrested, identified and released in the Fred homicide 

investigation. Defendant Halvorsen testified about the Johns identification as a prosecution 

witness at Baez’s trial. Baez was found not guilty at trial on a directed verdict finding by the 

Court. Ex. 49 at 28-46, 49-54; 54:24-55:7. 

87. None of this information about Johns’ cooperation in the Pagan investigation 

against Baez was documented in the Fred homicide files, or mentioned at any point at Plaintiff’s 

criminal trial. Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (omitted from police files), Ex. 154 (no mention in prosecution file); 

Ex. 8 (absence of such information at trial). 

IX. Defendants Fabricate Identifications from Ricardo Burgos, Elba Burgos, and Rosa 

Burgos 

88. Contained in the CPD file for the Fred homicide investigation is a supplementary 

report dated July 17, 1991. The report lists the reporting detectives as Defendants Halvorsen and 

Guevara. Both of their signatures are on the report. The report was reviewed, approved and 

signed by Sergeant Epplen. Ex. 50 at RFC-Johnson 68, 70.

89. Contained in the CPD file for the Fred homicide investigation is a closing report 

dated July 23, 1991. The report lists the reporting detectives as Defendants Halvorsen and 

Guevara. Both of their signatures are on the report. The report was reviewed, approved and 

signed by Defendant Healey. Ex. 6 at RFC-Johnson 76, 80.

90. According to the July 17 supplementary report, on July 11, 1991, Defendants 

Guevara and Halvorsen interviewed Elba Burgos and showed her a five-person photo array, in 

which Elba stated that the person she saw run by after the shooting “resembled” one of the 

people in the photo array, Darrell Johnson. A photo of Darrell’s younger brother, Plaintiff 

Demetrius Johnson, was then obtained from Defendant Daley. The photo contained Demetrius 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 20 of 147 PageID #:51886
20

Johnson, and two others. On July 15, that photo was then shown to Elba Burgos, who identified 

Demetrius Johnson. Ex. 50 at RFC-Johnson 70. 

91. According to the July 23 closing report, after Elba’s photo identification, on July 

22, 1991 Johnson was arrested and brought to Area 5, where he was positively identified in 

lineups by Elba, Rosa, and Ricardo Burgos. Ex. 51 at RFC-Johnson 76-78.

92. Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen also prepared a lineup report dated July 22, 

1991, containing both of their signatures, which was reviewed, approved and signed by 

Defendant Healey. The report states that Elba, Rosa, and Ricardo Burgos all identified Johnson 

from a live lineup. It also states that Angel and Victor Cordova viewed the lineup, but does not 

indicate that either of them made an identification. Ex. 51 at RFC-Johnson 72, 74.

A. Defendants Fabricated an Identification from Elba Burgos

Elba Burgos never saw the shooter’s face and could not make an identification 

without being told who to pick.

93. Elba Burgos was not initially identified as a witness. She was first mentioned as a 

witness in Guevara and Halvorsen’s July 17, 1991, more than a month after the crime. No 

explanation is contained in the police file for how Guevara identified Elba Burgos as a witness a 

month later. Ex. 50 at RFC-Johnson 70.

94. Elba Burgos testified that she was on her front porch on Claremont on the East 

side of the street, when she heard shots. She did not see the shooting. She looked up and saw 

someone running southbound down the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street. Ex. 50 at RFC 

Johnson 70 (sitting on her front porch, saw a person with a gun running down the sidewalk on the 

West side of street); Ex. 52 at A-100:19-101:2 (the person running was on the other side of the 

street).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 21 of 147 PageID #:51887
21

95. The person she saw was running the whole time. At no point did Elba testify that 

the person ever stopped and looked up at her. Ex. 52 (absence of any testimony about the person 

running ever stopping or looking over in her direction); id. at A-98:14-23. 

96. She had only four to five seconds to see the person’s face. She was also looking at 

the gun in the person’s hand as he ran by. Ex. 52 at A-110:18-20, A-111:18-112:2.

97. She could only see the side of the shooter’s face. Ex. 52 at A-101:8-13.

98. From Elba’s front porch to the person she saw running on the other sidewalk, 

there were: concrete steps in front of her porch, and then several steps to the yard fence, then the 

sidewalk, then the grassy area before the curb, and then a street wide enough for cars to park on 

both sides, and then another grassy area on the other side of the street before the sidewalk. Ex. 52 

at 98:24-101:2.

99. This distance from Elba’s porch to the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street 

is greater than 60 feet. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 22 of 147 PageID #:51888
22 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/1535+N+Claremont+Ave,+Chicago,+IL+60622/@4

1.9095777,-

87.6861167,21z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x880fd2bb0f072c99:0xa77d7f27010a5c51!8m2!3d4

1.9095638!4d-87.6856714!16s%2Fg%2F11c181t_8w?entry=ttu.

Elba Burgos could not provide any description of the person she saw running down the street 

when she was first interviewed by Defendants.

100. According to Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen’s July 17 report, they 

interviewed Elba Burgos on July 11, 1991, a month after the shooting. This is the first 

documented interview of Elba Burgos, and the first time her name appears in the file. No 

explanation is contained in the police file for how Guevara identified Elba Burgos as a witness a 

month later. She was not identified as a witness on the night of the crime or during the initial 

canvas. Ex. 50; Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of any other report in the police file of an interview of 

Elba Burgos before July 17 report documenting a July 11 interview). 

101. Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen’s July 17 report does not indicate that, other 

than “male black,” Elba Burgos provided any other description of the person she saw running by. 

Ex. 50 at RFC-Johnson 70. 

102. According to Guevara and Halvorsen’s July 17 report, after seeing the person 

with a gun running by, Elba Burgos “followed him to see where he was going and lost [sic] on 

Western Ave.” Elba testified at trial that this was false; she did not follow the person or go 

looking for him. Ex. 50 at RFC-Johnson 70; Ex. 52 at A-102:24-103:3. 

103. Defendant Guevara took notes of his conversation with Elba Burgos on a general 

progress report. Ex. 17 at B-58:20-59:2; cf. Ex. 17 at B-42:10-20 (Guevara would write 

handwritten notes, called progress reports, on which his typed reports were based). 

104. The CPD file contains no General Progress Reports or other notes of this 

interview. And the general progress report of Guevara’s interview of Elba Burgos was not 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 23 of 147 PageID #:51889
23 

tendered to the prosecution or defense. Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of any such notes in the police 

files); Ex. 17 at B-59:3-13 (stipulated by prosecution they had not received them from CPD). 

Defendants fabricated photo array and lineup identification of Johnson from Elba Burgos. 

105. During the interview of Elba Burgos, Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen also 

showed her a five-person photo array containing a photo of Darrell Johnson, the older brother of 

Demetrius Johnson. Ex. 50 at RFC-Johnson 70; Ex. 53 at IMPOUND EVIDENCE 402-403; 

Ex. 52 at A-94:15-95:15. 

106. The police file contains no explanation of how or why Defendant Guevara 

decided to include Darrell Johnson’s photo in this array in the first place. Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence 

of such information in police files). 

107. Instead, when asked at trial how he selected the five photos used in the photo 

array, Guevara testified that it was random: he “just chose five male blacks.” Ex. 17 at B-65:15-

17. 

108. However, Darrell Johnson’s records, including his criminal history and 

identification photo, was requested by Detective Maher, another Area 5 detective in 1991, on June 

15, 1991, just three days after the Fred shooting. But Darrell Johnson had not been arrested for 

any crime on or around June 15, 1991. Ex. 54 at RFC-Johnson 32448, RFC-Johnson 32450; 

Ex. 55 at 14:7-10; https://cpdp.co/officer/16973/richard-maher/ (joined Detective Division Area 

5, Unit 652, prior to 1991). 

109. Moreover, when Elba Burgos was shown the photo array containing Darrell 

Johnson, Guevara singled out Darrell Johnson’s photo from the array and “asked if it was this 

one.” Ex. 52 at A-95:5-15. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 24 of 147 PageID #:51890
24

110. Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen’s July 17 report states that when they showed 

Elba the photo array she said the photo of Darrell Johnson “resembled” the person that ran down 

Elba’s street. But at trial, Guevara claimed for the first time that Elba had said the person running 

by looked “a little younger.” Compare Ex. 50 at RFC-Johnson 70 with Ex. 52 at A-95:5-15.

111. According to Guevara and Halvorsen’s report, they knew Darrell Johnson had a 

younger brother, and contacted Defendant Daley, who then gave them a Polaroid photo, which 

contained a picture of Demetrius Johson and two other Black males. There is no earlier mention 

of Plaintiff at any point, or on any other basis. Ex. 50 at RFC-Johnson 70. 

The photo and photo array shown to Elba Burgos were unduly suggestive.

112. Based on the initial interviews of witnesses at the scene, Defendants knew the 

Black male had been described as being short, and relatively young. Indeed, the original suspect, 

Bryan Johns, was just 15 years old and 5’6”. Ex. 15 (“M, 1, 17” or male, Black, 17 years old); 

Ex. 16 at RFC-Johnson 48; Ex. 34 at RFC-Johnson 42.

113. Guevara admits that based on their interviews of witnesses the Defendants were 

looking for a short, young Black male. Ex. 17 at B-39:5-8, B-65:24-66:3.

114. In the five-person photo array, only Darrell Johnson was even arguably close to 

the age of a juvenile. The other four witnesses all appeared to be middle-aged or older. For 

several of them, the date of arrest was visible and showed that the photo had been taken years 

earlier (in one case 1980), revealing to the witness that the individuals were even older at the time 

of the shooting in 1991. Ex. 53. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 25 of 147 PageID #:51891
25

115. Darrell’s photo: 

The others:

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 26 of 147 PageID #:51892
26

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 27 of 147 PageID #:51893
27

Ex. 53.

116. Detectives had access to photobooks and drawers full of photos to be able to 

gather photos of similar looking individuals to their suspect to make fair photo arrays. Ex. 56 at 

74:15-85:12; Ex. 57 at 101:15-102:22 (Area 5 had a drawer and room full of photos for use in 

photo arrays); Ex. 58 at 272:5-9.

117. Elba acknowledged that the four additional individuals in the photo array were all 

too old to be the person she saw in June 1991. Ex. 52 at A-106:2-18.

118. When Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen returned on July 15 with the single 

photo they received from Defendant Daley, it contained just Demetrius Johnson and two others. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 28 of 147 PageID #:51894
28

Demetrius Johnson was the youngest and by far the shortest person in the photo, and he was the 

only one who was a sibling of Darrell Johnson and resembled him closely: 

Ex. 59.

119. According to Guevara and Halvorsen’s report, Elba Burgos identified Demetrius 

Johnson as the person she saw run past her with a gun. The report does not indicate how confident 

she was in her purported identification. Ex. 50 at RFC-Johnson 70.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 29 of 147 PageID #:51895
29

120. Elba Burgos agrees that Demetrius Johnson appeared younger and shorter than 

the other two people in the photo. Ex. 52 at A-106:19-107:8.

B. Defendants Fabricated an Identification from Ricardo Burgos

The only information Ricardo Burgos could provide was that the shooter he saw was a 

Hispanic male, not a Black male like Demetrius Johnson.

121. Ricardo Burgos was not initially identified as a witness. He was first mentioned as 

a witness in Guevara’s June 23, 1991, report more than a week after the crime, without any 

indication of how he came to be a witness. This report also documents an interview with Fina 

Montanez, in which she said the shooter was Black or Latino. Neither witness implicated 

Johnson. Ex. 60 at RFC-Johnson 60. 

122. When Ricardo Burgos was first interviewed by Defendant Guevara, he identified 

the shooter as being a “male Hispanic,” who he saw “pulling out a big gun from his waist” and 

then shoot at Edwin Fred and Raul Ortiz. Ex. 60 at RFC-Johnson 60; Ex. 17 at B-52:5-7. 

123. Ricardo Burgos provided no further description of the perpetrator, nor did he 

indicate that he ever saw a Black male perpetrator at all. Ex. 60 (absence of such information in 

report of interview of Ricardo Burgos).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 30 of 147 PageID #:51896
30

124. Demetrius Johnson was not Hispanic, nor did he remotely look Hispanic. He was 

a dark-skinned Black male. This is a picture of Demetrius Johnson from that time:

Ex. 61.

Ricardo Burgos never saw the shooter’s face and could not make an identification without 

being told who to pick.

125. Ricardo Burgos was in a car driving East on North Avenue when he heard the 

shooting. He did not see the actual shooting; he only heard the shots and saw a man running 

South on Claremont Avenue, who he assumed was the shooter. The person was running directly 

away from him and so he only saw this person from behind. Ex. 62 at ¶¶3-4; Ex. 63 at 17:10-

20:14, 37:21-38:14.

126. The person he saw was 60-70 feet away. Ex. 63 at 18:1-3.

127. Ricardo has given a sworn declaration and testified at his deposition that he did 

not see the shooter’s face and could not make an identification. Ex. 62 at ¶¶4, 10. Ex. 63 at 7:10-

20:14, 37:21-38:10, 38:11-14 (“Q. And if the police said that you could have identified that 

shooter, that would’ve been false, correct? A. Correct.”).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 31 of 147 PageID #:51897
31

128. After the shooting, Burgos got out of the car to see if he could help the victim. It 

turned out to be someone he knew, Edwin Fred. He stayed around and was there when officers 

arrived at the scene and were asking people what they saw. Ricardo told police at the scene that 

he heard the shots and saw someone running away, but did not see the person’s face. Ex. 62 at 

¶5.

129. The only way Ricardo could have made an identification is if the Defendants told 

him who to pick. Ex. 63 at 38:5-14, 92:22-94:3 (“Q. So if you identified someone, it was 

someone the police told you—were telling you did the crime, correct? A. Correct. Yes.”).

Defendants fabricated a photo array identification of Demetrius Johnson from Ricardo 

Burgos.

130. At Demetrius Johnson’s criminal trial, Defendant Guevara testified that he 

showed Ricardo Burgos a photo array on June 21, 1991, in which Ricardo Burgos identified 

Plaintiff Johnson. Ex. 17 at B-52:20-23. 

131. But there is no documentation in the entire police file that Ricardo Burgos was 

ever shown a photo array at any point. Showing a photo array is something that was important 

enough that it should have been documented, if it actually occurred. Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of 

such information in homicide files); Ex. 17 at B-54:19-24 (Guevara testifies that showing a 

photo array would be important enough to document in a supplemental report); Ex. 73 (City 

30(b)(6) designee) at 91:7-20 and Ex. 58 (City 30(b)(6) designee) at 239:6-19 (both positive and 

negative identifications always documented as a matter of training and practice).

132. Demetrius Johnson did not even become a suspect in the case until mid-July, 

1991, when Elba Burgos purportedly indicated that the perpetrator “resembled” Darrell Johnson, 

and so Defendants then focused on Darrell’s brother Demetrius. See supra at ¶110.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 32 of 147 PageID #:51898
32

Defendants concealed the identity of the person Ricardo Burgos actually identified in June 

1991.

133. Ricardo Burgos testified at the criminal trial, consistent with Defendant Guevara, 

that he identified someone from photos “a couple of days after” the shooting. Ex. 64 at A-71:11-

72:6.

134. At that time, the only person who was a suspect in the case was Bryan Johns. 

Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of any suspects identified in the police files in the first few weeks of the 

investigation, other than Bryan Johns).

135. Nowhere in the police file did Defendants document Ricardo Burgos’ positive 

identification of Johns, or anyone else, in June of 1991. Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of such 

information in police file). 

C. Defendants Fabricated an Identification from Rosa Burgos

Rosa Burgos never saw the shooter’s face and could not make an identification 

without being told who to pick.

136. Rosa Burgos was in a building walking down a staircase behind Raul Ortiz. Raul 

had just stepped out of the door when he got shot. Rosa was behind him, and immediately her 

eyes went to the gun. She wanted to get out of there, so she “closed the door immediately” and 

“ran upstairs.” Ex. 65 at RFC-Johnson 64, Ex. 24 at A-45:13-47:13. 

137. Rosa had just four seconds to see the shooter before running back upstairs, during 

which the shooter had a gun pointed in the direction of her and Ortiz. Ex. 24 at A-37:18-23.

138. Rosa told police “everything happened so fast and that she wasn’t sure” who the 

shooter was. Ex. 66 at B-12:5-10 (Rosa admitted this to PD Jack Carey when he interviewed her 

before trial); Ex. 25 (Carey notes of Rosa interview)); Ex. 24 (Rosa does not dispute that she told 

Carey this). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 33 of 147 PageID #:51899
33

139. Rosa provided police with no description of the shooter’s physical appearance. 

Ex. 24 at A-49:6-50:4.

140. Rosa admitted that when she was interviewed by Johson’s criminal defense 

attorney, she said that she “had trouble distinguishing between black people because all those 

people look alike.” Ex. 24 at A-55:6-10. 

D. Defendants Fabricated Lineup Identifications from Ricardo, Rosa and Elba Burgos

The lineup was unduly suggestive and designed to obtain a false identification of Plaintiff

141. The live lineup shown to Ricardo, Rosa and Elba Burgos consisted of the 

following individuals:

Ex. 67.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 34 of 147 PageID #:51900
34

142. Unlike the Erickson lineup report, the July 22 lineup report submitted by 

Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen does not indicate that it was shown to each witness 

separately. Ex. 51 at RFC-Johnson 74.

143. Demetrius Johnson was, again, the shortest person in the identification procedure. 

He was 5’5”; two of the others were listed as 5’9” and 5’10”. Ex. 51 at RFC-Johnson 74.

144. The lineup participants were not wearing shirts, but the police file contains no 

explanation for why the participants were instructed to be shirtless for the lineup. Ex. 51 

(absence of such information in the lineup report); Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of such information in 

the entire police file).

145. Demetrius Johnson was the only person in the lineup with a visible tattoo. Ex. 67 

at RFC-Johnson 95, 98.

146. Because the earliest indications from witnesses, including on the simulcast, were 

that the perpetrator was a member of the Maniac Latin Disciples street gang, the presence of a 

tattoo on only Plaintiff Johnson, along with Johnson being the youngest and shortest person in 

the lineup, would have stood out and biased the lineup against him. Ex. 128 at 17.

The lineup identifications of Ricardo, Rosa, and Elba Burgos were fabricated

147. Given that Elba had not been initially identified as a witness at all, had not seen 

the shooting, and had only seen the side of the face of a person running down the sidewalk on the 

other side of the street, the positive lineup identification of Plaintiff Johnson documented in 

Guevara and Halvorsen’s lineup report and closing report was fabricated. See supra at ¶¶93-120.

148. Given that Ricardo had initially identified the perpetrator as being Hispanic, had 

not seen the shooter’s face, had previously identified someone other than Johnson as the 

perpetrator, and could only have made an identification of Johnson if the police told him to pick, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 35 of 147 PageID #:51901
35

the positive lineup identification of Plaintiff Johnson documented in Guevara and Halvorsen’s 

lineup report and closing report was fabricated. See supra at ¶¶121-135.

149. When Rosa Burgos was interviewed by Public Defender Jack Carey before trial 

about her July 22, 1991 lineup identification, Rosa told Carey that she did not make a positive 

identification but instead told the police she was unsure. All she could say was that the person in 

the lineup looked similar to the shooter, not that he was the shooter. Ex. 24 at B-12:19-B-13:11; 

Ex. 25. 

150. According to Public Defender Jack Carey’s notes, Rosa informed him that when 

she viewed the July lineup, Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen asked her “which one you going 

to pick.” Carey’s notes state—twice—that at the July lineup Rosa told the police that she was 

“NOT SURE.” Ex. 25.

151. In addition, Rosa Burgos told PD Carey that she had already attended an earlier 

lineup on the night of the shooting. At that lineup, three individuals had already identified 

someone else and she was told by police that they had the wrong guy. Ex. 24 at B-12:2-18; 

Ex. 25.

152. All of this information—that Rosa Burgos had told police that it all happened so 

fast and she wasn’t sure who the shooter was; that she had been unsure when she viewed 

Plaintiff Johnson in a lineup; that she had been asked “which one you going to pick” to implicitly 

create a requirement that she select someone; that she had said to them that Johnson looked 

similar to the shooter, not that he was the shooter, and that she had been told that the person 

identified on the night of the shooting was the wrong guy—was omitted from Defendants 

Erickson, Guevara, and Halvorsen’s police reports in the police files. Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of 

such information in police files).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 36 of 147 PageID #:51902
36 

X. Defendant Guevara Does Not Deny That Defendants Fabricated Identifications from 

Ricardo, Rosa and Elba Burgos 

153. Guevara pleaded the Fifth Amendment when asked whether he fabricated Elba 

Burgos’ identification. Ex. 38 at 27:4-9 (Elba did not give police a description of shooter when 

she first spoke to them), 29:8-14 (impossible for Elba to make an identification), 30:2-7 (Elba 

said she could not give good description of the shooter and could not identify him), 56:1-11 

(“what you showed Elba was not a proper photo array, was it?”), 58:10-59:12 (told Elba to pick 

Demetrius Johnson out of the photo lineup, knew that the photo identification procedure was 

improper, did not disclose that he manipulated Elba into picking Demetrius Johnson, and 

intentionally wrote a false report about Elba’s identification), 64:18-65:13 (tainted Elba’s live 

lineup identification and intentionally suppressed true circumstances of identifications). 

154. Guevara pleaded the Fifth Amendment when asked whether he fabricated Ricardo 

Burgos’ identification. Ex. 38 at 29:8-25 (impossible for Ricardo Burgos to identify the shooter, 

Ricardo told Guevara he could not identify the shooter), 53:17-21 (Ricardo Burgos could not 

make an identification); 79:10-15 (“Q: The only reason Ricardo Burgos selected Demetrius 

Johnson out of the lineup was because you told him to, right? A: Plead the Fifth.”), 91:10-92:15 

(closing report falsely states that Ricardo Burgos identified Demetrius Johnson); 107:23-108:4 

(falsely testified at trial that Ricardo Burgos picked Johnson out of a lineup without influence). 

155. Guevara pleaded the Fifth Amendment when asked whether he fabricated Rosa 

Burgos’ identification. Ex. 38 at 29:8-25 (impossible for Rosa Burgos to identify the shooter, 

Rosa told Guevara she could not identify the shooter), 82:6-11 (“Q: And the only reason Rosa 

Burgos picked Demetrius Johnson out of the lineup was because you told her to, correct? 

A: Plead the Fifth.”), 91:10-92:20 (closing report falsely states that Rosa Burgos identified 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 37 of 147 PageID #:51903
37 

Demetrius Johnson out of a live lineup), 107:23-108:4 (falsely testified at trial that Rosa Burgos 

picked Johnson out of a lineup without influence). 

XI. Professor Dysart’s Opinions Regarding the Eyewitness Identifications of Elba Burgos, 

Ricardo Burgos, and Rosa Burgos 

156. By 1992 and 1993, the International Association of Chiefs of Police Law 

Enforcement Policy Center was releasing papers and model policies that were premised on the 

inherent unreliability of eyewitness identification procedures. As the IACP papers in 1992 and 

1993 noted, “Police frequently rely on eyewitness identifications. Unfortunately, civilian 

eyewitnesses frequently prove to be unreliable observers, and erroneous identifications are often 

the result. Misidentifications by eyewitnesses are normally the result of a combination of 

factors.” Both papers explained the primary reasons that eyewitness identifications were 

“frequently unreliable”: frailties of human memory and perception, especially under stress; and 

the ease with which eyewitnesses could be influenced by suggestion. Ex. 23 at 24-25.

157. Dr. Jennifer Dysart, Plaintiff’s retained expert in eyewitness identifications, 

identified several factors that rendered the identifications of Elba Burgos, Ricardo Burgos, and 

Rosa Burgos unreliable and generally increased the likelihood that they would identify an 

innocent person. See generally Ex. 128. Each of these factors alone would negatively impact the 

identifications, but taken in combination, they further undermine the identifications. Ex. 128 at 

10-15.

158. First, each witness had a limited opportunity to view the shooter’s face. 

Dr. Dysart referenced the following: that Elba Burgos testified that she saw the shooter’s face for 

4-5 seconds, that Rosa Burgos testified that she saw the shooter’s face for about 4 seconds, and 

that Ricardo Burgos repeatedly testified that he did not see the shooter’s face. According to 

Dysart, these factors make it extremely difficult for a witness to observe/remember (encode) a 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 38 of 147 PageID #:51904
38

perpetrator’s face and make an accurate identification. Where, as here, the duration of viewing 

opportunity was less than 12 seconds, the likelihood of a false identification of an innocent 

person increased to 90%. Ex. 128 at 11-12.

159. Second, all three witnesses had limited opportunity to view and identify the 

shooter’s face because they observed the shooter’s weapon, which created a weapon focus effect. 

Rosa Burgos stated that she looked at the shooter’s gun first, then looked at the shooter’s face. 

Ricardo Burgos told police that he saw a Hispanic male pull a big gun from his waist and shoot 

Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Fred. Elba Burgos told police she heard gunshots and saw a person run past 

with a gun in his hand. In other words, Dr. Dysart observed, it appears that all of these witnesses 

looked at the gun or toward the gun for a period of time during their observations, and “attending 

to the weapon impairs memory for the characteristics of the person(s) wielding the weapon(s) 

and reduces eyewitness description and identification accuracy, especially when the opportunity 

to see the perpetrator is short or limited.” Ex. 128 at 12.

160. Third, Ricardo and Elba Burgos viewed the shooting at a significant distance: 

Ricardo Burgos testified that the shooter was 60-70 feet away, and Elba Burgos’ distance from 

the shooting was estimated to be 25 feet. According to Dr. Dysart, the distance of Ricardo and 

Elba Burgos from the shooting is a relevant estimator variable, as “distance can significantly 

impact a person’s ability to view the details of another person’s face.” Ex. 128 at 12-13.

161. Fourth, Rosa Burgos testified that she was scared and upset when she saw 

Mr. Ortiz get shot. The stress/arousal experienced by Ms. Burgos could have significantly 

reduced the reliability of her eyewitness identification. Ex. 128 at 13-14.

162. Fifth, cross-race identification is a relevant factor to consider in this case, as all 

three witnesses who selected Mr. Johnson at trial are White Hispanics and Mr. Johnson is Black 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 39 of 147 PageID #:51905
39

and non-Hispanic. At trial, Rosa Burgos testified that she had difficulty distinguishing Black 

people because they all look alike to her. Cross-race identifications are 1.56 times more likely to 

lead to misidentifications. Ex. 128 at 14. 

163. Sixth, there was a significant time delay between the shooting of Mr. Ortiz and 

Mr. Fred and the identification of Mr. Johnson by all three witnesses. The shooting occurred on 

June 12, 1991. Elba Burgos first viewed Mr. Johnson as a suspect on July 15, 1991, Rosa Burgos 

first viewed Mr. Johnson as a suspect on July 22, 1991, and it is unclear when Ricardo Burgos 

first viewed Mr. Johnson as a suspect. Dr. Dysart noted that “memory decreases relatively 

quickly after an event and then continues to decrease with the passage of time.” Ex. 128 at 14-15. 

164. Dysart also noted a number of variables that occurred during the identification 

procedures themselves that rendered the identifications unreliable and inflated the witness’s 

confidence in their own identifications. Ex. 128 at 15-25. Those include:

165. Post-event contamination: Ricardo Burgos initially indicated that the shooter was 

a Hispanic male, yet at trial he testified that Mr. Johnson, a Black male, was the shooter. All 

three witnesses were together preparing for their testimony, and likely heard information 

regarding the event from others. Witness memories can be altered by information learned after 

the event, and given that the witness’s descriptions of the shooter changed over time, this 

suggests their memories were contaminated. Ex. 128 at 15-16.

166. Description “Accuracy”: There is very little to no description of the perpetrator 

associated with the three witnesses who selected Mr. Johnson at trial: Ricardo Burgos initially 

told police that the perpetrator was a Hispanic male, Rosa Burgos did not give any description of 

the perpetrator on the night of the shooting, and Elba Burgos simply identified the perpetrator as 

a Black male. Dr. Dysart states that “The lack of detail in the various witness’ descriptions of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 40 of 147 PageID #:51906
40

shooter should have been a red flag for investigators that these witnesses did not have a strong 

memory for the shooter and would therefore not likely be reliable eyewitnesses in the 

investigation.” Ex. 128 at 16-17.

167. Photo Array and Lineup Bias: Elba Burgos identified Mr. Johnson as the 

perpetrator based on a Polaroid photo of only three people, in which Mr. Johnson was the 

shortest and in the middle position. This photo did not include careful selection of fillers, as is 

necessary to conduct unbiased identification procedure. A properly constructed lineup should 

include a minimum of five fillers, none of whom should stand out—the opposite of the “photo 

array” in this case. Ex. 128 at 17-18.

168. Ultimately, Dr. Dysart opines: “After being selected from an unnecessarily 

suggestive procedure (the Polaroid or the lineup) the results from any subsequent procedure (e.g., 

in-court) are relatively meaningless. That is the bias from the first suggestive procedure renders 

any second procedure’s outcome irrelevant for the purposes of determining witness accuracy.” 

Ex. 128 at 18.

169. In the July 22, 1991 live lineup, Mr. Johnson was again the shortest person in the 

lineup. Additionally, all of the participants in the lineup are shirtless and Mr. Johnson is the only 

individual with a tattoo. Dr. Dysart stated that “with respect to the lineup in this case, there was a 

very strong likelihood that the witnesses would select Mr. Johnson from the procedure.” Ex. 128 

at 17-18. 

170. Pre-identification Warnings/Instructions: Failing to tell a witness that the 

perpetrator may or may not be present implies that the perpetrator is in the identification task, 

which encourages witnesses to make a selection and leads to an increase in identification errors, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 41 of 147 PageID #:51907
41 

Ex. 128 at 18-19. There are no records in this case suggesting that witnesses were provided with 

pre-identification instructions.

171. Non-blind Lineup Administration: The detectives who conducted the 

identification procedures in this case knew Mr. Johnson was the suspect, so the procedure was 

non-blind. In one study, witnesses were more than two times as likely to pick an innocent person 

from a photo array when the identification procedure was non-blind. Ex. 128 at 19-20.

172. Repeated Identification Procedures, Unconscious Transference and Commitment 

Effects: Elba and Ricardo Burgos both viewed Mr. Johnson in a 3-person Polaroid and later 

selected him in a live lineup and at trial. “Research shows if an individual has been selected in 

one identification procedure, that person is considerably more likely to be selected in a 

subsequent procedure regardless of whether or not they are the actual perpetrator.” By the time 

an identification is made in court, it is “mere theater.” Ex. 128 at 20-22.

173. Poor Witness Confidence: Because there is no contemporaneous documentation 

of the witness’s confidence levels at the time they made their first identification attempts, their 

post-hoc statements about their confidence are relatively meaningless. Ex. 128 at 22-23.

174. Post-Identification Feedback: Rosa Burgos stated that in the first lineup she 

viewed on the night of the shooting, three witnesses were told by police that they had picked the 

wrong person. Post-identification feedback or confirmation of an identification decision can lead 

a witness to believe that they had a better opportunity to see a perpetrator than was actually the 

case. Ex. 128 at 23-25.

XII. Defendants’ Retained Expert, Dr. John Wixted, Opines about Eyewitness 

Identifications

175. Defendants’ retained expert in eyewitness identifications and memory, Dr. John 

Wixted, opines that both Cordova’s and Elba Burgos’ purported identifications of Demetrius 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 42 of 147 PageID #:51908
42 

Johnson from the three-person photo are not probative of guilt. Wixted observes that Cordova’s 

purported identification from the three-person photo followed by his negative lineup 

identification is “scientifically inexplicable” and therefore uninformative. Ex. 129 at 7. 

176. Wixted also says Elba Burgos’ purported identification of Demetrius Johnson 

from the three-person photo is also of little probative value because she had already seen a photo 

of someone who she thought looked like the shooter (Darrell Johnson). Ex. 129 at 7.

XIII. Defendants Ignore Strong Leads Pointing to Other Suspects Because Their Intent 

Was to Frame Demetrius Johnson 

177. On June 29, 1991, Officers Crespo and Roman received a phone call from a man 

named Juan Lopez, who stated that he had observed the Fred murder and followed the shooter to 

an apartment above a tire shop at LeMoyne and Western. Ex. 138.

178. Lopez described the shooter as 5’7”, 20 years old, and 150 lbs. Ex. 138. 

179. On that same day, officers arrested a man named Robert Weeks for disorderly 

conduct. Weeks fit the description of the shooter. Ex. 138.

180. The officers conducted a follow-up investigation and learned that Weeks 

frequented the apartment above the tire shop at LeMoyne and Western. Ex. 138.

181. This information was turned over to Defendant Halvorsen. Halvorsen came to the 

Fourteenth District and the investigation was turned over to him. Ex. 138.

182. Defendant Guevara admits that they interviewed Weeks. However, he did not 

document the interview, and the police file contains no information about the interview or any 

other follow up investigation of Weeks. Guevara suppressed evidence of the investigation into 

Weeks. Ex. 17 at B-55:5-10; Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (absence of such information in police files); Ex. 38 

at 20:1-6 (“Q. You concealed evidence of your investigation into another person named Robert 

Weeks, correct? A. I Plead the Fifth.”).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 43 of 147 PageID #:51909
43 

XIV. Angel Cordova 

183. Angel Cordova had been brought to Area 5 on the night of the shooting. The 

Erickson lineup report indicates that Angel Cordova viewed the six-witness lineup containing 

Johns that night. However, there is no documentation in the police file of what Angel Cordova 

told Defendants he saw and heard when he was at Area 5 that night. Ex. 18; Ex. 3 and Ex. 4 

(absence of documentation of Cordova interview from the night of the crime in the entire police 

file).

184. According Guevara and Halvorsen’s July 17 report, however, they re-interviewed 

Angel Cordova around July 15, at which time he stated that he had been standing on the back

porch of his apartment at 2325 North Avenue. The shooting occurred in front of 2345 W. North 

Avenue, so Angel was on the wrong side of his apartment to see the shooting. Nevertheless, 

Guevara and Halvorsen showed him the same 3-person photo that they showed Elba Burgos. The 

report states that Cordova identified Demetrius Johnson as the shooter. Ex. 50 at RFC-Johnson 

68, 70 (Cordova was ‘“standing on [his] back porch when the shooting took place’”). 

185. Based in part on Angel Cordova’s purported identification, the defendants 

submitted a stop order for Demetrius Johnson for the murder of Edwin Fred. Ex. 50 at RFCJohnson 70. 

186. Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen then had Angel Cordova view the same live 

lineup viewed by Ricardo, Elba and Rosa Burgos that included Plaintiff. Cordova did not 

identify Plaintiff. Ex. 17 at B-69:21-70:4; Ex. 51 at RFC-Johnson 74. He was not called at trial. 

Ex. 8 (absence of Cordova testimony from complete trial transcript).

187. Defendants’ retained expert in eyewitness identifications and memory, John 

Wixted, notes that “fillers IDs and lineup rejections provide evidence (not proof) that the suspect 

in the lineup is innocent.” Ex. 129 at 7. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 44 of 147 PageID #:51910
44 

188. The CPD file does not contain any contemporaneous notes, GPR’s or details of 

Cordova’s interview with Guevara and Halvorsen. The July 22 lineup report also contains no 

information about what Cordova said at the live lineup; it simply says nothing about whether 

Angel indicated the shooter was not in the lineup, or he could not tell. Ex. 51; Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 

(omitted from police files). 

XV. Defendants’ Reports Contain Fabricated Information and Johnson is Charged Based 

on this Fabricated Information 

Defendants’ Fabrication of the June 12 Guevara Lineup Report Regarding Bryan Johns. 

189. Defendants Guevara and Erickson wrote and signed a June 12 lineup report, 

approved by Defendant Healey, stating that the six-person lineup viewed on the night of the 

shooting resulted in no identifications of Bryan Johns. Ex. 34.

190. However, this information was false, given the Erickson lineup report stating that 

Aby Gonzalez had identified Johns, Rosa Burgos’ statement that multiple people had made an 

identification that night, and the multiple individuals listed as fillers in the Guevara lineup report 

who stated that they were not in a lineup that night, and/or for whom the City has no records to 

show they had been arrested or at the police station that night. See supra ¶¶36-41, 57-59, 151.

Defendants’ Fabrication of the June 20 Supplementary Report Regarding Rosa Burgos. 

191. Defendant Guevara wrote a supplementary report submitted on June 20, 1991, 

approved by Defendant Healey, purporting to document an interview of Rosa Burgos and Victor 

Cordova, who had not previously been identified as a witness. The report states that Rosa Burgos 

told the detectives she could make an identification of the person who shot Raul Ortiz. Victor did 

not see the shooting, and could say only that after the shooting he saw a Black male with a gun 

running away. Ex. 65 at RFC-Johnson 64; Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (Victor Cordova is not mentioned in the 

entire Fred police files until June 20, 1991).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 45 of 147 PageID #:51911
45

192. However, Rosa could not make an identification of the person she saw for a brief 

moment from behind Raul Ortiz, before turning around and running back upstairs. Rosa stated 

that it all happened so fast that she could not make an identification, and that she had a hard time 

distinguishing among Black people because “all those people look alike.” See supra ¶¶136-140.

Defendants’ Fabrication of the July 17 Supplementary Report Regarding Elba Burgos.

193. Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen wrote a supplementary report submitted on 

July 17, 1991, purporting to document an interview of Elba Burgos. The report states that Elba 

Burgos told the detectives she could make an identification of the person she saw running on the 

night of the shooting, more than a month earlier. Ex. 50 at RFC-Johnson 70.

194. However, Elba was not even identified as a witness until mid-July, a month after 

the shooting. She did not provide any detailed description of the shooter, and Elba could not 

make an identification of the person she saw running down the sidewalk across the street, from 

the side and with just a few seconds to observe him. And although Defendant Guevara took notes 

of his conversation with Elba, there are no notes contained in the police file indicating that Elba 

ever told Defendants that she could make an identification. See supra ¶¶93-104.

195. The July 17 supplementary report also purported to document that Elba Burgos 

was shown a photo array in which she independently selected Plaintiff’s brother Darrell Johnson 

as “resembling” the person Elba saw running down the street. Ex. 50 at RFC-Johnson 70.

196. However, the photo of Darrell Johnson was actually singled out, and Elba was 

“asked if it was this one.” See supra ¶¶105-111. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 46 of 147 PageID #:51912
46

Defendants’ Fabrication of the July 22 Lineup Report.

197. Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen wrote a supplementary report submitted on 

July 22, 1991, approved by Defendant Healey, claiming that Ricardo, Rosa and Elba Burgos all 

positively identified Demetrius Johnson from a lineup. Ex. 51.

198. However, Ricardo, Elba and Rosa did not get an opportunity to see the shooter’s 

face well enough, or for long enough, to make an identification without police manipulation. The 

lineup they viewed was also highly suggestive, including because Johnson was the shortest, 

youngest, and the only one with a visible tattoo. See supra ¶¶88-152.

Defendants’ Fabrication of the July 23 Closing Report.

199. Defendant Guevara and Halvorsen wrote and signed the July 23 closing report, 

approved by Defendant Healey, in which they claimed to have obtained a photo array 

identification of Plaintiff from Elba Burgos, followed by lineup identifications of Plaintiff from 

Ricardo, Rosa, and Elba Burgos. Ex. 6.

200. However, these photo array and lineup identifications were fabricated. See supra

¶¶118-120, 130-133, 141-152.

201. In addition, the closing report also states that when Johnson was interviewed by 

Defendant Halvorsen and an Assistant State’s Attorney, he told them that 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. According to the report, it was then revealed to Johnson that 

the shooting had occurred on a Wednesday night. Ex. 6 at RFC-Johnson 80.

202. However, Johnson testified that he was not interviewed by ASA Buckley. Ex. 5 at 

148:21-22 (“No, I didn’t talk to any ASA”), see also id., at 88:21-91:18 (when describing 

interrogations and treatment in police station, identifying only Guevara and Halvorsen), 104:7-9 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 47 of 147 PageID #:51913
47

(does not recall ever speaking with a State’s Attorney), 146:11-19 (answering “No” when asked 

if he recalled ever speaking with ASA Buckley). 

203. In addition, Johnson never made the statement that he picked up his girlfriend 

from work every day, except Wednesdays and Sundays. Ex. 147; Ex. 5 at 150:17-151:5.

Guevara Does Not Deny Fabricating Police Reports

204. When asked at his deposition whether he intentionally included false information 

in his written reports, Defendant Guevara invoked his Fifth Amendment right. Ex. 38 at 18:25-

19:7 (“Q: And...you created a false lineup report claiming that Aby Gonzalez and the other 

eyewitnesses did not select Bryan Johns from the lineup, right? A: I plead the Fifth.”), 59:7-12 

(“Q: And the part of your report about Elba Burgos identifying Demetrius Johnson from a 

photograph is intentionally false, isn’t it?” A: Plead the Fifth.”), 86:20-87:18 (“Q: You fabricated 

a different report of a lineup that same night, and that report was false, correct? A: Plead the 

Fifth. . . . Q: A lineup report you fabricated falsely stated that no one picked out Johns in the 

lineup that occurred on the night of the shooting, right? A: Plead the Fifth. Q: You intentionally 

fabricated that false lineup report, didn’t you? A: Plead the Fifth.), 91:10-92:21 (closing report 

filled with false statements that you had fabricated, including Elba Burgos, Ricardo Burgos, and 

Rosa Burgos’ false identifications of Demetrius Johnson). In fact Guevara invoked his Fifth 

Amendment right to all questions about the Fred investigation, including whether he decided on 

Demetrius Johnson as a suspect and then manufactured evidence to frame him. Ex. 38 at 40:17-

41:1.

Defendants Deny That There Are Any Destroyed or Discarded Documents, or There Were 

Previously Disclosed Documents That Are Now Missing

205. At trial, no Defendants testified, and the State did not argue, that the police files 

were incomplete or that there were any documents missing or deleted. Likewise, every one of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 48 of 147 PageID #:51914
48 

Defendants denied destroying or discarding any documents. Ex. 151 at Response to Request No. 

15; Ex. 153 (same).

XVI. Defendants Concealed from the Prosecution and Defense the True Circumstances 

Related to the Evidence Used to Implicate Demetrius Johnson

206. Nowhere in the investigative file or permanent retention file did Defendants 

document that three witnesses had identified Johns as the perpetrator on the night of the Fred 

shooting. Likewise, the Erickson lineup report, and the information contained in it about Johns 

having been identified by Aby Gonzalez, was not disclosed to the prosecution or defense. 

See supra ¶¶38-52, 67-83. 

207. Nowhere in the investigative file or permanent retention file did Defendants 

document any of the circumstances or interactions with Ricardo Burgos that cast doubt on their 

purported identifications of Plaintiff, including the fact that he had not actually seen the shooting 

or that he only saw the shooter from behind and so he could only make an identification of 

Defendants’ suspect if they told him who to pick. The prosecution file contains no records 

indicating that such information was disclosed to them by the police, and this information is not 

mentioned at any point during the criminal trial. See supra ¶¶125-129; Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (omitted 

from police files), Ex. 154 (no mention in prosecution file); Ex. 8 (absence of such information 

at trial).

208. Nowhere in the investigative file or permanent retention file did Defendants 

document any of the circumstances or interactions with Rosa Burgos that cast doubt on her 

purported identification of Plaintiff, including the fact that she had told police that it all happened 

so fast, she was not sure, she had trouble distinguishing between Black males because they all 

looked alike, that at the lineup she was asked which one she was going to pick, and that she had 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 49 of 147 PageID #:51915
49

been told that the multiple identifications made on the night of the shooting had been of the 

wrong guy. See supra ¶¶136-140, 149-152; Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (omitted from police files).

209. Nowhere in the investigative file or permanent retention file did Defendants 

document any of the circumstances or interactions with Elba Burgos that cast doubt on her 

purported identifications of Plaintiff, including the fact that Guevara had singled out a photo of 

Darrell Johnson and “asked if it was this one.” See supra ¶¶93-120; Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (omitted from 

police files).

210. Nowhere in the investigative file or permanent retention file are Defendant 

Guevara’s notes of his interview of Elba Burgos, which he testified that he took. The prosecution 

and defense at trial made clear that they had never been tendered such notes. See supra 

¶¶103-104.

211. Nowhere in the investigative file or permanent retention file did Defendants 

document that they had shown a photo array to Ricardo Burgos in June 1991, before Plaintiff had 

ever been a suspect in the investigation. Nor did they document who Ricardo Burgos identified 

in that June photo array. The prosecution file contains no records indicating that such 

information was disclosed to them by the police; and information about the true identity of the 

person that was the suspect in that June photo array before Plaintiff became a suspect is not 

mentioned or referenced at any point during the criminal trial. See supra ¶¶121-135; Ex. 3 & 

Ex. 4 (omitted from police files); Ex. 154 (no mention in prosecution file); Ex. 8 (absence of 

such information at trial).

212. Nowhere in the investigative file or permanent retention file did Defendants 

document that Bryan Johns was a cooperating witness in another murder case involving some of 

the same Defendants, and that at the time Johns was released in this case he was about to testify 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 50 of 147 PageID #:51916
50

in the other murder case. The prosecution file contains no records indicating that such 

information was disclosed to them by the police; and this information is not mentioned or 

referenced at any point during the criminal trial. See supra ¶¶53-66, 84-87; Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 

(omitted from police files); Ex. 154 (no mention in prosecution file); Ex. 8 (absence of such 

information at trial).

213. Nowhere in the investigative file or permanent retention file did Defendants 

document that they had followed up on a lead provided by officers Crespo and Roman regarding 

Robert Weeks, nor did they document what they learned during their interview and investigation 

of Weeks. The prosecution file contains no records indicating that any investigation by 

Defendants into the Weeks lead provided by Crespo and Roman was disclosed to them by the 

police; and there is no mention of, or reference to, what information was learned during the 

investigation into Weeks, including what he said (or didn’t say) when questioned about the Fred 

homicide. See supra ¶¶177-182; Ex. 3 & Ex. 4 (omitted from police files), Ex. 154 (no mention 

in prosecution file); Ex. 8 (absence of such information at trial).

The felony review prosecutor and trial prosecutor did not conduct any independent 

investigation and never learned of any of the misconduct set forth above.

214. The Defendant Officers fabricated false evidence and hid evidence from 

prosecutors. See supra ¶¶206-213.

215. ASA Buckley, the felony review prosecutor, did not conduct any independent 

investigation of the crime. Based on the identifications of Ricardo, Elba and Rosa Burgos, he 

approved murder charges against Johnson. Ex. 157; Ex. 1; Ex. 6 at RFC-Johnson 78-80.

216. Kevin Sheehan was a Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney who was the sole 

prosecuting trial attorney at Johnson’s criminal trial. By the time of Johnson’s trial in 1992, ASA 

Sheehan was an experienced trial attorney and had prosecuted many violent crimes. In any case 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 51 of 147 PageID #:51917
51

he prosecuted, ASA Sheehan would carefully and thoroughly review all documents in the file 

provided to him. ASA Sheehan took his responsibility as a prosecutor and his Brady obligations 

seriously. Ex. 39 at 14:20-16:7, 16:11-17, 17:11-14, 17:19-22, 18:5-10, 59:25-60:4. 

217. ASA Sheehan relied on the police to investigate crimes and provide him with all 

pertinent information they learned in the course of the investigation, including whether they had 

discovered any exculpatory evidence. In anticipation for Johnson’s trial, ASA Sheehan 

specifically requested that Defendant Halvorsen bring him the file related to the Fred homicide 

investigation. ASA Sheehan expected Defendants to have documented their entire investigation 

and that “any and all reports generated by the police whether in the form of handwritten notes or 

titled typed reports, should come to the state’s attorney.” Ex. 39 at 25:12-16, 39:25-40:12, 53:7-

16, 55:18-56:2, 56:16-57:3, 66:22-67:23, 68:1-8; Ex. 3 at RFC-Johnson 12.

218. Attorney Sheehan tendered a packet of information to Johnson’s defense counsel 

and disclosed all the evidence provided to him. Sheehan does not know what specific police 

reports and records were received and tendered to the defense, but ASA Sheehan is confident 

that the Erickson lineup report was not among the documents he received from CPD. Ex. 39 at 

25:15-16, 39:7-24, 42:23-43:6, 43:7-15, 43:7-15, 57:17-58:20.

219. When ASA Sheehan went through the entire set of Blueback notes, he could not 

find a single notation or indication that he 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. The only lineup he references in the Blueback is the negative lineup from Guevara’s 

report. Ex. 39 at 24:12-17, 45:14-46:6, 61:11-66:7.

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

was the true perpetrator, Sheehan stated that none of the witnesses who viewed the June 12, 1991 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 52 of 147 PageID #:51918
52

lineup that included Johns identified him. Sheehan mentioned Aby Gonzalez as not identifying 

Johns. ASA Sheehan would have “absolutely not” made the argument in closing that no one 

identified Johns in a June 12 lineup if he had been given the Erickson six-witness lineup report. 

There was no mention of any positive identification of Johns, or of Erickson’s report, at 

Johnson’s criminal trial. Sheehan believes that if Johnson’s defense attorneys had the Erickson 

lineup report, they would have crossed and impeached witnesses with the document, further 

bolstering his certainty that he had not received and tendered the report. Ex. 8 at Johnson 1010-

1312 (closing argument at 1278-1289); Ex. 39 at 28:4-9, 35:4-20, 39:17-24, 41:8-18, 63:9-17; 

Ex. 43 at 38:20-25, 39:5-18.

221. If Sheehan had received the Erickson lineup report, he would have disclosed it 

“with great speed and immediacy” to Johnson’s defense counsel because a lineup where a 

positive identification is made of someone who is not the criminal defendant is “the definition of 

exculpatory.” Sheehan believed tendering all exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant’s 

defense counsel is a “moral obligation,” and would have never withheld exculpatory evidence. 

Ex. 39 at 18:25-19:9, 23:3-10, 39:25-40:9, 10-12, 68:9-17, 24-69:2.

222. While prosecuting the case, Sheehan never learned that Defendants committed 

misconduct during the Fred homicide investigation. Sheehan never learned that Defendants had 

engaged in any sort of improper identification procedures or suppressed evidence. If he had, he 

would have tendered it to Plaintiff’s criminal defense attorney “immediately” along with other 

Brady material. Ex. 39 at 19:18-20:9, 20:10-21, 39:25-40:4, 40:10-12, 68:9-13, 68:15-17. 

223. Sheehan was familiar with Johnson’s criminal defense attorneys. He believed that 

Carey had elite “chops of legal ability” and that Gubin was a “very experienced” lawyer who put 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 53 of 147 PageID #:51919
53

on a “vigorous defense.” He also believed Gubin conducted her due diligence in Johnson’s 

defense and was well prepared at trial. Ex. 39 at 26:20-27:2, 8-17, 29:25-30:6. 

Despite their best efforts, Plaintiff’s defense attorneys did not learn the exculpatory and 

impeaching evidence discussed above. 

224. Jack Carey was a Cook County Public Defender who initially represented 

Johnson during his criminal proceedings. In 1991, Jack Carey was an experienced public 

defender who regularly defended murder cases. Ex. 5 at 128:10-19 (Johnson recalls being 

represented by a public defender.); Ex. 66 at JGS_JOHNSON 184 (B9:10-14).

225. During his representation of Johnson, Carey served discovery requests and issued 

a subpoena for documents to the Chicago Police Department seeking all the police reports and 

records. His subpoenas included a request for all notes that would have been part of any 

investigative files or street files. Ex. 42 at CCPD 5-7; Ex. 44 at IMPOUND EVIDENCE 328-33.

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

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

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

office.” Ex. 43 at 14:9-11, 52:9-20, 73:2-18; Ex. 5 at 132:15-133:8.

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

for Additional Discovery seeking lineup photos; the contents of the simulcast after the shooting 

stating that “Little D” was involved; “[t]he photo array shown to witnesses”; and “[t]he single 

photo of Defendant shown to witness prior to his arrest.” Ex. 161 at IMPOUND EVIDENCE 

343; Ex. 16 at RFC-Johnson 000048; Ex. 43 at 19:20-20:19.

228. Ruth Miller, an attorney from Mayer, Brown, and Platt, assisted Gubin in 

defending Johnson. Gubin and Miller investigated Johnson’s case together. Gubin and Miller 

went out to the crime scene and interviewed eyewitnesses and alibi witnesses. Gubin subpoenaed 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 54 of 147 PageID #:51920
54

all the police records and all the relevant information on the witnesses. Ex. 43 at 14:15-15:10, 

17:1-18:2, 24:20-25:12.

229. Gubin believed and trusted that she received all the evidence and documents that 

prosecutors had. Gubin recalled Sheehan as an honest prosecutor, and is confident that he would 

not have withheld any exculpatory documents or evidence. Ex. 43 at 24:9-19, 38:20-25, 43:14-

44:16. 

230. Once they submitted discovery requests and subpoenas, Johnson’s defense 

counsel had no way of knowing whether CPD had produced all responsive documents. Ex. 43 at 

21:8-12, 22:8-22, 22:24-23:13.

231. Despite their diligent investigation and subsequent discovery request, Gubin and 

Miller “absolutely did not have Erickson’s lineup report in preparation for Johnson’s criminal 

trial or at any point during Johnson’s criminal proceedings.” Gubin’s theory, which she argued at 

trial, was that Brian Johns was the real killer. Gubin believes that if she would have had the 

Erickson lineup report, her defense of Johnson, the prosecution of Johnson, and the outcome of 

the trial would have all been very different. Ex. 43 at 18:14-16, 28:18-29:17, 34:20-35:2, 37:1-

23, 62:12-15; Ex. 45 at 75:11-18; 27:4-27:14; Ex. 34 at RFC-Johnson 40-43.

232. As part of her investigation, Gubin would always attempt to interview witnesses 

or have an investigator interview them. She determined what witnesses to interview based on the 

police reports. If there were police notes not disclosed that contradicted other police reports, she 

would have wanted them. She interviewed Rosa, Raul, and two other witnesses. 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 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 55 of 147 PageID #:51921
55

the investigation. If there were notes that indicated that Gonzalez made a positive identification 

the night of the shooting, Gubin would have wanted to know about it during her representation of 

Johnson. She “absolutely” would have interviewed Gonzalez, and it would have changed her 

approach to her defense of Johnson, including her cross-examination of Guevara and Daley, and 

her approach to opening and closing argument, and her likelihood of winning a motion to 

suppress the identification. Ex. 43 at 30:6-14, 31:20-33:16; 36:11-25; 38:5-40:13, 41:23-42:8.

233. Gubin did not interview Bryan Johns because she was told by Johnson that Johns 

refused to testify and help Johnson, and so she had reason to believe he would not even talk to 

her. Gubin also was not sure if Johns was represented by counsel. Ex. 43 at 19:18-30:5; Ex. 5 at 

315:2-10 (Gubin asked Plaintiff if Johns would testify and admit his guilt, and Plaintiff told 

Gubin that Johns had said he would not).

234. Gubin filed a motion to suppress Johnson’s identification in his criminal case. 

However, she rescinded the motion because she did not believe she would win based on the 

evidence she had, and she did not want to lose the judge’s attention when she made the same 

arguments at trial. If Gubin had been aware of the Erickson report or the suggestive identification 

procedures employed by Defendants, she “definitely would’ve gone forward” with the motion 

and thinks she would have been likely to succeed. Ex. 43 at 37:1-23; 45:13-47:2.

235. Gubin defended Johnson at trial to the best of her ability. She argued that Johnson 

was misidentified during suggestive police identification procedures weeks after the shooting 

and vigorously cross-examined the three individuals who identified Demetrius Johnson as the 

shooter—trying to demonstrate that they could not have seen the shooter well enough to make an 

identification and that things happened too fast, and that there were other factors that would 

undermine their identifications—and the other shooting victim. Gubin also argued that Johnson’s 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 56 of 147 PageID #:51922
56

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. Ex. 167 at Johnson A22:1-

30:9 (cross examination of Raul Ortiz); Ex. 24 at A42:7-A59:11 (cross examination of Rosa 

Burgos); id. at A-62:17-A-67:4 (re-cross examination of Rosa Burgos); Ex. 64 at A-75:14-87:15 

(cross examination of Ricardo Burgos); Ex. 52 at A-98:12-112:5 (cross examination of Elba 

Burgos); Ex. 10 at A-116:11-A-136:15 (direct examination of Madalia Reyes); id. at A-149:5-

152:3 (re-direct examination of Madalia Reyes); Ex. 11 at A-152:11-A-159:7 (direct examination 

of Elizabeth Martinez); Ex. 169 at B-3:18-B-7:11 (direct examination of Madeline Rodriguez); 

Ex. 17 at B-34:12-73:2 (direct examination of Reynaldo Guevara); id. at B-79:5-82:18 (redirect 

examination of Reynaldo Guevara); Ex. 8 at B-85:15-102:21 (the defense’s closing argument). 

Ex. 43 at 28:18-29:17, 31:20-33:16; 36:11-25; 38:5-25; Ex. 45 at 29:2-9.

236. Gubin and Miller also attempted to defend Johnson by arguing that Johns was the 

real perpetrator, given that he was identified on the initial dispatch as the shooter. If Gubin or 

Miller had known about the positive identification documented in the Erickson lineup report, or 

ever learned that Defendants suppressed the Erickson lineup report and fabricated another lineup 

report, that would have been important information that they would have used in their defense of 

Johnson. Ex. 43 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 crime and his getting arrested), 37:11-

38:25; Ex. 45 at 29:2-9 (Johns was the perpetrator according to the defense’s theory); Ex. 39 at 

40:19-41:3 (recalled the defense argued that Johns was the real shooter in closing); Ex. 45 at 

36:10-24 (if the defense would have had the Erickson report, it “would have been all over this 

case”).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 57 of 147 PageID #:51923
57 

XVII. The Evidence Defendants Fabricated Was Used in Charging Johnson, Continuing His 

Prosecution, and at His Criminal Trial 

237. Demetrius Johnson was arrested on July 22, 1991. Ex. 1.

238. The arrest report used to justify Johnson’s arrest identifies the probable cause as 

three eyewitness identifications. Specifically it states: “Above subject arrested for FIRST 

DEGREE MURDER after being identified by three eye witnesses as the person that shot and 

killed Edwin FRED. . . .” Ex. 1. 

239. Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen performed the arrest and wrote the arrest 

report. Ex. 1; Ex. 6 at RFC-Johnson 76.

240. The CCSAO Felony Minute Sheet, or “Form 101,” states that ASA Buckley 

approved murder charges against Plaintiff, and identifies three eyewitnesses as prosecuting 

witnesses: Ricardo, Elba and Rosa Burgos. Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen are both also 

listed as prosecuting witnesses involved in the arrest and investigation. Ex. 157. 

241. Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen are listed along with Ricardo Burgos, Elba 

Burgos, and Rosa burgos, as the prosecuting witnesses in the Felony 101. Ex. 154 at CCSAO31.

Defendant Guevara and Defendant Daley testify at Plaintiff’s criminal trial about the 

fabricated non-identification of Bryan Johns on the night of the shooting. 

242. The purported fact that Bryan Johns was not identified in a lineup came up 

multiple times during trial. For instance, Defendant Daley testified that became involved in the 

case when he heard a dispatch about a shooting near North Avenue and Claremont. He headed to 

the area looking for a specific alleged shooter named Bryan Johns. He testified that he got to the 

area and arrested Bryan Johns and two other people and found a handgun in their van. Finally, he 

testified that Johns participated in a lineup and was not selected from the lineup. Ex. 20 at B22:2-5, B-22:14-23:13, B-24:2-11, B-26:5-27:10, B-27:17-19, B-31:15-22, B-32:8-10.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 58 of 147 PageID #:51924
58

243. Defendant Guevara also testified that Johns stood in a negative lineup. Ex. 17 at 

B-73:22-74:9.

Ricardo Burgos, Rosa Burgos, Elba Burgos, and Defendant Guevara testify about the 

fabricated photo array and lineup identifications of Johnson.

244. Defendant Guevara testified that Rosa, Elba, and Ricardo picked Demetrius 

Johnson out of a lineup on July 22. Ex. 17 at B-77:3-78:8.

245. Elba Burgos and Ricardo Burgos both testified that they identified Johnson out of 

a three-person photo, and it was admitted into evidence (People’s 6-B). Ex. 64 at A-72:12-73:7; 

Ex. 52 at A-95:24-96:24.

246. The photo of the live lineup was presented to Ricardo, Rosa, and Elba, and was 

admitted into evidence (People’s 8.). All three witnesses indicated on the lineup photo that they 

had selected Johnson. Ex. 24 at A-39:6-20; Ex. 64 at A-74:15-75:6.; Ex. 52 at A-97:8-98:3.

Ricardo Burgos

247. Ricardo Burgos testified at Plaintiff's criminal trial about his purported 

identification of Demetrius Johnson. He testified that, while riding in the passenger seat of a 

moving car, he looked at the shooter for 40-45 seconds. He testified that he identified Demetrius 

Johnson out of a photo array and a live lineup. And he identified Demetrius Johnson in court as 

the shooter. Ex. 64 at A-70:8-15-24, A-71:15-73:7, A-73:24-74:14.

Rosa Burgos

248. Rosa Burgos testified at Plaintiff’s criminal trial about her fabricated live lineup 

identification of Demetrius Johnson. Specifically, she testified that she was behind Ortiz when he 

was shot, that she looked at the shooter’s gun and then looked at the shooter’s face for four 

seconds. She testified that she went to Area 5 on July 22, 1991, to view a live lineup, and picked 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 59 of 147 PageID #:51925
59

Demetrius Johnson. And she identified Demetrius Johnson in court as the shooter. Ex. 24 at A34:13-20, A-35:21-36:7, A-37:18-23, A-38:3-39:4. 

Elba Burgos

249. Elba Burgos testified that while she was sitting on her porch, she heard shots, 

looked toward North Avenue and saw a crowd of people, and then saw a young Black man with 

a gun running across the street. According to Burgos’ testimony, Guevara brought photos to her 

house on July 11 and said the person with the gun looked like Darryl Johnson’s photo but 

younger. She said that Guevara came back a few days later and showed her a polaroid with three 

people in it, and, upon reviewing the polaroid in court, said she identified Demetrius Johnson. 

Finally, she testified that she viewed a live lineup about a week after that and, upon looking at a 

photo of the lineup, marked an X over Demetrius Johnson. She also identified Demetrius 

Johnson in court as the person she saw running with the gun. Ex. 52 at A-91:3-92:4, A-93:2-8, 

A-94:2-95:12, A-95:24-96:24, A-97:8-98:3. 

All of Guevara’s false reports, including those documenting false statements, false 

identifications, and a fake alibi, were introduced and admitted at trial.

250. All of Guevara’s reports that prosecutors and defense counsel possessed—

including the Johns negative lineup report, the June 20 report reflecting that Rosa Burgos said 

she could identify the shooter, July 22 lineup report, and the closing report documenting the 

fabricated identifications and attributing to Johnson a false alibi, see supra ¶¶189-205—were 

shown to Guevara at trial and admitted at trial as Defendant’s Group Exhibit 6. Ex. 17 at B43:18-21; Ex. 34; Ex. 65; Ex. 51; Ex. 6.

Defendant Daley fabricates other evidence at trial

251. Daley testified that he personally knew Demetrius Johnson to have the nickname 

“Little D.” Ex. 20 at B-30:14-31:7.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 60 of 147 PageID #:51926
60 

252. Johnson did not have the nickname “Little D.” No one ever called him that. Ex. 

147; Ex. 11 at A-158:13-16.

Neither a positive identification of Johns or the six-witness Erickson lineup report was ever 

referenced or mentioned at Johnson’s criminal trial. 

253. 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. Ex. 8 at B-104:1-24 (“She had a chance to finger Brian Johns and she didn’t nor 

did four other people that Miss Gubin asked Detective Guevara that he interviewed . . . . Yes, 

Abbey Gonzales. Did they look at that first lineup? Did they pick out Brian Johns? No. It was a 

negative lineup.”); Ex. 39 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 (would have never said that in closing if he had 

received the Erickson lineup report).

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

Erickson lineup report at Johnson’s criminal trial. Ex. 8. As a result, Johnson was convicted of 

murder and attempted murder and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Ex. 8 at C-15:18-23.

XVIII. Each of the Defendants Was Involved in Material Parts of the Investigation and 

Framing Demetrius Johnson 

255. Defendants Guevara, Halvorsen, and Erickson were the principal detectives 

working the case when critical evidence of Johnson’s innocence was concealed, and evidence 

used to charge and prosecute Johnson was developed. Ex. 18, Ex. 34, Ex. 16, Ex. 60, Ex. 65, Ex. 

50, Ex. 51, Ex. 6, Ex. 22, Ex. 170, Ex. 1 (signing some or all of the reports submitted in June and 

July 1991).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 61 of 147 PageID #:51927
61

256. Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen are listed as the reporting detectives on the 

closing report, and they were both involved in preparing the closing report. Ex. 6; Ex. 171 at 

67:23-68:21 (Area 5 detective, Guevara’s former partner: their names at bottom of report means 

they were involved in preparing the report).

257. Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen were the detectives listed on the arrest report 

related to Johnson’s arrest and charging for the Fred murder. Ex. 1.

258. Detectives would share information with one another about any developments and 

anything they learned during the course of an investigation, including specifically with the 

assigned detectives on the case. This information would be shared one way or another, including 

through detectives and through supervisors. Ex. 172 (Area 5 detective) at 73:22-74:7, 85:9-16; 

Ex. 173 (Area 5 detective) at 25:25-26:16; Ex. 174 (Area 5 detective) at 26:22- 27:14; Ex. 175 

(Area 5 detective) at 245:11:-245:24 (Riccio received information from Guevara and Halvorsen 

and documented in report).

259. Supervisors such as Healey were kept abreast of the homicide investigations they 

supervised, including the results of any positive or negative identifications, and investigative 

interviews and developments occurring at the Detective Division Area. Ex. 58 (City 30(b)(6) 

designee) at 262:18-266:5 (inter alia, “Every aspect of a homicide investigation is monitored by 

a supervisor in the Detective Division”; characterizing monitoring day-to-day conduct of 

homicide investigations as “integral role that a supervisor in the Detective Division serves or 

performs”); Ex. 176 (Sergeant overseeing Area 5 Detectives) at 22:5-25:6, 32:20-33:2, 41:3-

42:5, 46:19:24. It was important for supervisors to become familiar with the information 

contained in reports during a homicide investigation. Ex. 186 (Sergeant overseeing Area 5 

detectives) at 230:8-14.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 62 of 147 PageID #:51928
62

260. Moreover, the investigative file for the Fred investigation, which should contain 

all investigative information learned during the homicide investigation, was kept in the 

Sergeants’ office. Ex. 73 (City 30(b)(6) designee) at 199:24-200:18.

Detective Ernest Halvorsen

261. Guevara and Halvorsen were partners and routinely investigated and closed 

homicide investigations together. Ex. 187 at 53:3-11 (Guevara and Halvorsen were partners for 

8-9 years), 186:16-20 (he was usually with Guevara, and he types up dozens of their reports 

every week), 187:4-7, 230:15-16 (investigating together); Ex. 188 at 193:17-23 (Guevara and 

Halvorsen’s supervising sergeant, testifying that the two of them worked together and solved 

more gang-related cases than other detectives), 314:12-24 (same).

262. When asked about Halvorsen’s involvement in the investigation, and his role in 

the misconduct alleged throughout the investigation, Defendant Guevara pleaded the Fifth 

regarding Halvorsen’s involvement, both generally and specifically. Ex. 38 at 15:5-16 (pleading 

Fifth on solving the case with Halvorsen); 39:19-40:2, 40:17-41:1 (deciding to frame Plaintiff); 

41:2-23 (working with Guevara every step of the way); 76:16-77:14, 78:22-79:4, 81:21-25, 

115:21-117:4 (conspired with Halvorsen against Plaintiff), 118:1-8 (same); 138:16-139:3 

(conspire with EH against others); 141:12-19 (same); 142:7-11 (same); 144:3-22 (same); 145:8-

25 (same); 146:7-13, 20-24 (same).

263. As discussed above, Halvorsen is listed as a reporting detective on, and signed, 

the July 23 closing report (documenting the purported photo array identification of Plaintiff by 

Elba Burgos, the purported lineup identifications of Elba, Rosa and Ricardo Burgos, and the 

purported statement from Demetrius Johnson about not picking his girlfriend up on Wednesdays, 

the day of the shooting), the July 22 lineup report (documenting the three purported lineup 

identifications), the July 17 supplementary (documenting Elba’s purported photo array 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 63 of 147 PageID #:51929
63

identification). The fabricated Guevara lineup report falsely stating that Johns was not identified 

was also written in and around the time that Guevara and Halvorsen were writing reports and 

closing their case against Plaintiff in late July 1991. Ex. 6; Ex. 51, Ex. 50; see supra ¶¶58-66.

264. At the time Fred was murdered and Johns was brought to Area 5 and placed in a 

lineup, Johns was Halvorsen’s star witness in a separate murder prosecution, in which Halvorsen 

also testified against the defendant. Neither Halvorsen nor any other Defendant documented or 

disclosed this information in the Fred investigation; instead, the identifications of Johns were 

concealed and Johns was released. See supra at ¶¶53-66, 84-87, 212.

265. Halvorsen was informed by Officers Crespo and Roman of a credible lead 

pointing to Robert Weeks as the possible perpetrator, and took custody of Weeks at the 14th 

District on June 29, 1991. Halvorsen did not document any investigative efforts regarding Mr.

Weeks, despite the fact that Weeks was, at minimum, questioned about the murder. Ex. 189; see 

supra ¶¶177-182, 213. 

266. Halvorsen was involved in the arrest of Plaintiff on July 23, 1991, despite the lack 

of any non-fabricated probable cause for his arrest, and was listed as a prosecuting witness by the 

Felony Review ASA Buckley. Ex. 1; Ex. 154; see supra ¶¶88-92, 199-203.

267. ASA Sheehan specifically requested that Defendant Halvorsen bring him the file 

related to the Fred homicide investigation, as indicated in a note in the Investigative File—the 

same file that contains the Erickson six-witness lineup report. Ex. 3 at RFC-Johnson 12; Ex. 39 

at 67:6-23.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 64 of 147 PageID #:51930
64

Detective William Erickson

268. Defendant Erickson was with Defendant Guevara on the night of the shooting, 

and involved in the lineup that took place that night in which Johns was the suspect and viewed 

by multiple witnesses. Ex. 18; Ex. 34. 

269. Erickson conducted a lineup on the night of the shooting and wrote and signed a 

lineup report documenting that Johns had been identified by Aby Gonzalez. However, this report 

did not include the information from Rosa Burgos that in fact three people had made 

identifications that night; and that the detectives had told the witnesses that they had identified 

the wrong person. See supra at ¶¶36-42, 269.

270. Erickson did not take steps to ensure his report documenting one of the three 

eyewitness identifications would be included in the permanent retention file and disclosed to 

prosecutors and criminal defendants, such as submitting the report for approval from the sergeant 

so that a copy could be placed in the permanent retention file/Records Division file. Ex. 73 (City 

30(b)(6) designee) at 176:13-177:12. 

271. Erickson signed and is listed as a reporting detective on the Guevara lineup report, 

which contradicts Erickson’s lineup report and claims neither Aby Gonzalez nor any other 

witness identified Johns. See supra at ¶¶53-66.

272. Erickson permitted Johns to be released that night. Ex. 21 at 76:22-77:24 (Daley 

was surprised Johns was not identified and then released that same night).

Officer Darryl Daley

273. Defendant Daley was involved in the initial arrest of Bryan Johns, and was 

present at Area 5 and knew about the lineup in which Aby Gonzalez viewed Johns as a suspect. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 65 of 147 PageID #:51931
65

Ex. 21 at 75:5-77:2; Ex. 20 at B-27:11-19 (“Q. Do you know whether or not Little D, Brian 

Johns, participated in a lineup that night? A. Yes, he did.”).

274. When Daley was questioned at Plaintiff’s criminal trial about the Johns lineup, he 

did not respond that he did not know what happened, or that he had not participated in the lineup, 

or that he lacked foundation to testify about the line, or that his knowledge about the lineup was 

based on hearsay. Instead, he testified about the lineup and the results, stating that none of the 

witnesses identified Johns. Ex. 20 at B-27:11-19, B-31:15-B-32:10.

275. Daley wrote a June 13 report in which he falsely stated that none of the witnesses 

who viewed the Johns lineup identified him. Ex. 19.

276. Daley was involved in the search and processing of the van that Johns and two 

others were seen exiting shortly after the shooting. Despite recovering two different guns from 

the vehicle, only one was inventoried. See supra at ¶¶24-35.

277. Daley provided Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen with a photo of Demetrius 

Johnson to be used in an unduly suggestive, three-person photo array. See supra at ¶¶118-120.

278. Daley fabricated a claim that Plaintiff was known by the nickname “Little D.” 

See supra at ¶¶251-252. 

Sergeant William Healey

279. Supervisors such as Healey were kept abreast of the investigation they conducted 

and of the results of lineups that occurred at Area 5, including all positive and negative 

identifications, meaning Healey would have been informed of the two different lineup results 

from June 12 regarding Bryan Johns. See, e.g., Ex. 58 (City 30(b)(6) designee) at 262:18-265:5 

(inter alia, “Every aspect of a homicide investigation is monitored by a supervisor in the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 66 of 147 PageID #:51932
66 

Detective Division”; characterizing monitoring day-to-day conduct of homicide investigations as 

“integral role that a supervisor in the Detective Division serves or performs”).

280. Healey reviewed, approved and signed numerous reports that the evidence shows 

were fabricated and/or omitted exculpatory information, including the June 12 Guevara lineup 

report claiming that no identification of Johns had been made; the June 20 supplementary report 

documenting Guevara’s interview of Rosa Burgos and omitting the statements she made 

indicating that she could not make an identification; the July 22 lineup report documenting the 

purported lineup identifications of Plaintiff; and the July 23 closing report. Ex. 34; Ex. 65; Ex. 

51; Ex. 6.

281. Healey signed and approved the June 12, 1991 Guevara lineup report on July 24, 

1991, despite the fact that it was being presented for his approval more than a month later and 

despite the Erickson lineup report in the investigative file in the Sergeant’s office, containing 

contradictory information. Ex. 34; Ex. 73 (City 30(b)(6) designee) at 200:12-18.

282. Healey failed to take steps to ensure that the Erickson lineup report was submitted 

for approval and placed in the permanent retention file in accordance with CPD policy. Ex. 73 

(City 30(b)(6) designee) at 176:13-177:12.

283. Healey did not ensure that the credible lead regarding Robert Weeks was 

meaningfully pursued, or that any interviews or investigation into Weeks was documented in 

progress reports and/or supplementary reports. See supra at ¶¶177-182.

[PARAGRAPHS 284 THROUGH 300 INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]

XIX. Monell Theories

301. Plaintiff’s Monell theories include failure to train, supervise and discipline claims, 

widespread practice claims, and express policy claims. Within each of those categories, Plaintiff 

is pursuing multiple theories of liability, including the following: (a) the failure to train, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 67 of 147 PageID #:51933
67

supervise and discipline Chicago Police officers who engage in investigative misconduct of all 

types, including witness coercion and abuse, eyewitness manipulation, lying, fabrication and 

suppression of evidence, and the failure to comply with documentation and disclosure 

obligations; (b) widespread practices, amounting to de facto policies, of allowing Chicago Police 

officers to engage in investigative misconduct of all types, including witness coercion and abuse, 

eyewitness manipulation, lying, fabrication and suppression of evidence, and the failure to 

comply with documentation and disclosure obligations; and (c) deficient policies—both in 

express terms and through obvious omissions—that authorized Chicago Police officers to engage 

in investigative misconduct of all types, including witness coercion and abuse, eyewitness 

manipulation, lying, fabrication and suppression of evidence, and the failure to comply with 

documentation and disclosure obligations. Ex. 68 (Pl.’s Resps. to Def. City's First Set of 

Interrogatories to Pl) at 1-2. In particular: 

a. Evidence Suppression: Plaintiff’s Monell theories based on the CPD’s pattern 

and practice of Brady violations—i.e., related to the repeated failure to disclose 

exculpatory information to criminal 7 defendants—include express policy theories 

(e.g., documentation, notetaking and file keeping policies that were plainly 

inadequate on their face); widespread practice theories (e.g., a widespread 

practice of failing to document investigative steps, permitting officers to keep 

street file that were not later disclosed); and failure to train, supervise and 

discipline theories (e.g., the failure to train detectives on documentation, 

notetaking and file keeping policies, the failure to conduct audits to ensure such 

policies were being following, the failure to discipline officers for violating 

documentation, notetaking and file keeping policies). These theories based on the 

CPD’s pattern and practice of Brady violations are supported by the deposition 

testimony in this case, including from the individual officers (regarding their 

documentation and file keeping practices), and the City’s 30(b)(6) designees 

disclosed in this case and others (Foster, Winstrom, Hickey, Sullivan); the 

homicide file in this case; the hundreds of additional Area 5 homicide files 

produced in Reyes/Solache, Rivera, and Fields, including but not limited to the 

common Guevara productions; the ongoing production of Cook County Public 

Defender files in this case, as well as in Reyes/Solache, Rivera, and Fields; the 

expert reports previously produced in Reyes, Rivera, and Fields; the City’s 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 68 of 147 PageID #:51934
68

documentation, notetaking and file keeping policies, and lack thereof; the Jones 

and Palmer litigation, and the findings and revelations therein related to CPD’s 

street files practice and the wrongful prosecution of George Jones; and the 

qualitative and quantitative findings of Plaintiffs’ experts. Answering further, Mr. 

Tiderington’s expert reports in Reyes/Solache, Sierra, and Iglesias lists his 

materials reviewed, which identify in detail evidence supporting Plaintiffs’ Bradyrelated theories. Plaintiff’s evidence supporting these theories show that CPD 

maintained a policy and widespread practice of permitting officers to keep 

informal files containing evidence that could be, and was, withheld from criminal 

defendants. . . . Not surprisingly, then, CPD’s own homicide files reveal that in 

case after case, the new policy was not being followed, and that instead the 

widespread practice of failing to document all investigative steps (including 

exculpatory and impeaching information) and of withholding investigative 

documentation not turned over into an official file continued unabated. The result 

of these broken policies and widespread practice of withholding, is that 

constitutional Brady violations occurred far too often. Likewise, secret files of 

investigative information not accounted for or disclosed has kept turning up 

across CPD. . . .Moreover, the numerous Guevara-related exonerations alone 

reflect case after case in which exculpatory information was not documented, and 

was not disclosed. Demetrius Johnson’s case is emblematic: in that case, a highly 

exculpatory lineup report documenting the identification of an alternate suspect 

was buried in a file at Area 5, but was not included in the official permanent 

retention file or disclosed to the prosecutors and criminal defendant. In Iglesias, a 

lead police pursued indicating witnesses during the initial investigation implicated 

the Spanish Cobras—and thus pointing away from Plaintiff—was never disclosed 

to Iglesias; that information was suppressed. In Gomez, multiple witnesses told 

police highly exculpatory information indicating that individuals other than Mr. 

Gomez fired weapons at the intersection where the victim was killed, but that 

evidence was suppressed. . . Plaintiff references and incorporates the expert 

reports of Michael Brasfield in Fields and Rivera, and Anthony Finnell in 

Reyes/Solache, Sierra, Bouto, Rodriguez, and Iglesias, which discuss many of 

these theories and the evidence supporting them, in tremendous detail. Ex. 68 

(Pl.'s Resp. to Def. City's First Set of Interrogatories to Pl) at 6-11.

b. Eyewitness Identifications: Plaintiff will also pursue a theory that the Chicago 

Police Department had a widespread practice of manipulating eyewitness 

identification procedures to create false positive identifications of police suspects, 

and also failed to document identification procedures. Plaintiff’s Monell theories 

based on the CPD’s pattern and practice of improper eyewitness identification 

tactics—i.e. suggestive, coercive and manipulated lineups and photo identification 

procedures—include express policy theories (e.g., policy omitting photo arrays 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 69 of 147 PageID #:51935
69 

and all other identification procedures other than live lineups, permitting nondocumentation and misidentification of filler identifications and tentative 

identifications, and omitting witness statements of confidence or lack thereof); 

widespread practice theories (e.g. a widespread practice of using suggestive 

identification procedures); and failure to train, supervise, and discipline theories 

(e.g. the failure to supervise and discipline detectives who used improper 

identification tactics to secure eyewitness identifications from witnesses who had 

no meaningful opportunity to view the perpetrator). Those widespread practices 

have a direct connection to this case, and in particular the false and manipulated 

eyewitness identifications of Ricardo Burgos, Elba Burgos, and Rosa Burgos, 

none of whom had any meaningful opportunity to view the shooters, and 

communicated as much to the initial detectives who interviewed them. Yet, weeks 

after the crime they somehow identified Plaintiff, who just happened to be the 

police suspect.Plaintiff incorporates his responses to the Individual Defendants’ 

interrogatories, which further discuss the constitutional misconduct in this case. In 

addition, Plaintiff references and incorporates the expert reports of Gary Wells 

and Jennifer Dysart in Rivera v. City of Chicago, and Dr. Steblay in Velez v. City 

of Chicago. Plaintiff also incorporates his objections and response to Request No. 

4, below. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response. Finally, Plaintiff 

intends to incorporate his expert reports and expert depositions in this matter. Ex. 

68 (Pl.'s. Resps. to Def. City's First Set of Interrogatories to Pl) at 11-12. 

XX. Notice of Evidence Suppression

302. In the early 1980s, City of Chicago final policymakers were made aware that 

police officers were engaged in an unconstitutional pattern of suppressing investigative materials 

through two cases: Palmer v. City of Chicago and Jones v. City of Chicago. In April 1982, 

Chicago officials, including Chicago Police Department Superintendent Richard Brzeczek, 

became aware of the circumstances of a 1981 homicide investigation that resulted in charges 

being brought against George Jones, and the unconstitutional evidence suppression practice that 

caused his wrongful prosecution. Ex. 70 (Palmer v. City of Chicago, 562 F. Supp. 1067, 1073 

(N.D. Ill. 1983) (J. Shadur) (hereinafter “Shadur Order”) (Brzeczek testified at hearing); Ex. 71 

(Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 207:15-209:8, 83:21-84:4 (Brzeczek testified at injunction hearing); 

Ex. 72 (2016 Hickey Fields Trial Testimony) at 11:9-23, 12:3-7 (“It is true that the City got put 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 70 of 147 PageID #:51936
70

on notice that there was a problem with the way it was handling the topics I mentioned a minute 

ago, correct? A. Correct.”); 19:13-22; Ex. 73 (Winstrom Dep. in Reyes) at 159:5-23. 

303. In Jones, a detective named Frank Laverty developed strong evidence that Jones 

could not have committed the murder. But, as stated by the Seventh Circuit, this evidence was 

placed “not in the police department’s regular files but in its ‘street files.’ These were files that 

the police did not turn over to the state’s attorney’s office as they did with their regular 

investigative files.” Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985, 995-96 (7th Cir. 1988). In the spring 

of 1982, Detective Laverty learned that Jones was on trial for the murder; he went to his 

Commander to tell him that an innocent person was being prosecuted, but his Commander took 

no action; and Laverty then informed Jones’s criminal defense attorney about the information in 

the undisclosed file. The court declared a mistrial, and the State’s Attorney dropped all charges 

against Jones. Jones then filed a civil lawsuit stemming from the withholding of important 

investigative information in an undisclosed file, resulting in his wrongful prosecution. His case 

resulted in a jury verdict finding a custom of maintaining documents with important investigative 

material that were withheld from the State’s Attorney’s Office and criminal defendants. Jones, 

856 F.2d at 988; see also Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 61:3-23, 63:6-9, 67:9-68:3. 

304. In 1988, in Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F. 2d 985 (7th Cir. 1988), the Seventh 

Circuit affirmed the jury verdict in favor of George Jones, including the finding that the City of 

Chicago had maintained an unconstitutional practice of evidence suppression, permitting 

detectives to keep important investigative information undisclosed to criminal defendants. The 

appellate decision included the following: (a) the case disclosed “frightening abuse of power by 

members of the Chicago police force and unlawful conduct by the City itself”; (b) Laverty was 

charged with a disciplinary infraction, “transferred out of the detective division, ostracized by his 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 71 of 147 PageID #:51937
71

fellow officers, and assigned to a series of menial tasks culminating in the monitoring of police 

recruits giving urine samples” while “none of the defendants has been disciplined for 

misconduct”; (c) there was “enough evidence to enable the jury to infer that [a Chicago Police 

Department Commander, Lieutenant and Sergeant] had known . . . [and] had approved every 

false step”; and (d) there was sufficient evidence against the City that the practice of evidence 

suppression existed, caused Jones injuries, and was “consciously approved at the highest policymaking level.” 856 F. 2d 985, at 988, 991, 993, 996.

305. In April 1982, shortly after the Laverty revelations about the non-disclosure of 

important investigative materials, a class action lawsuit called Palmer v. City of Chicago was 

filed to challenge the use of informal files to suppress investigative materials, and, days later, the 

Honorable Judge McMillen issued a temporary restraining order requiring the CPD to preserve 

all investigative materials not included in formal police files. Ex. 70 (Shadur Order) at 2. By 

September 1982, the action was transferred to the docket of the Honorable Milton Shadur, who 

thereafter granted a preliminary injunction on the matter. Id. at 1; Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) 

at 69:22-70:12; 79:21-80:6. The files in Palmer were never analyzed in a systematic fashion. Ex. 

152 (Haas affidavit) at 2-5.

306. James Hickey authored the policies regarding the file disclosure policies for 

homicide investigations for the City of Chicago in 1983. Ex. 74 (Hickey Dep. in Fields) at 50:12-

16 (“I was the primary drafter of this order [83-1] on behalf of the chief of detectives.”); Ex. 71 

(Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 116:22-23 (“When 83-2 was generated you wrote it? A. I drafted it, 

yes.”).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 72 of 147 PageID #:51938
72

307. Hickey was designated by the City of Chicago under Rule 30(b)(6) in subsequent 

litigation, including Fields v. Chicago, and Rivera v. Chicago. See Ex. 74 (Hickey Dep. in 

Fields); Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera, 5/6/14) at 47:21-48:18.

308. In his capacity as the City’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Hickey testified that, in light 

of Palmer and Jones, and as early as 1982, City policymakers knew they had a city-wide problem 

with the practice of evidence suppression and non-disclosure resulting from using a 

“decentralized” file system for homicide investigations. Ex. 75 (April 10, 2014 Hickey 

Testimony, Fields v. City of Chicago) at 2043:22-2044:11, 2044-2045:7; 2048:2- 2052:9; Ex. 71 

(Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 222:11-22, 228:9-229:3. 

309. As a result of the developments in Jones and Palmer, Hickey conducted an 

internal review of Chicago Police Department practices related to evidence suppression, the 

results of which he shared with senior Department officials including Chief of Detectives, 

William Hanhardt. Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 200-201, 223:5-225:13; Ex. 75 (2014 

Hickey Fields Trial Testimony) at 2049-2051. 

310. Hickey found that there was a citywide practice of using a “decentralized” file 

system for homicide investigations, whereby investigative steps were being documented in 

informal notes and internal to-from memoranda between investigators, all of which were treated 

as the personal property of the investigators and were stored in parallel files that were not subject 

to disclosure. The information in the memos and notes was not making it into official reports. In 

addition, official reports often were not written right away, and instead were written only once 

they had settled on a suspect, at which point investigators might consider alternate suspects and 

other evidence to be non-pertinent. As a result, entire branches of an investigation, including 

investigation into alternate suspects, were not getting documented in official reports, and were 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 73 of 147 PageID #:51939
73

instead sitting in memos and notes that were not disclosed and eventually destroyed once an 

investigation was complete. Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 58:10-13, 72:3-15, 95:14-96:20, 

204:3-21, 215:10-16:15, 219:9-221:6; Ex. 75 (April 10, 2014 Hickey Testimony, Fields v. City 

of Chicago) at 2043:22-25; 2044-45, 2050-51, 2051:2-5; Ex. 76 (Hickey Dep. in Kluppelberg 

(pt. 1) at 85-89, 94:14-20 (“Q. Generally speaking, what happened to a detective’s notes prior to 

1983? A. The detective kept the notes until such time as they prepared the supplementary report, 

at which time they destroyed their notes, threw them in the garbage can or whatever, including 

myself.”). 

311. City officials were aware of resistance within the Police Department to changing 

the practice of keeping parallel, “personal” files not available to the criminal justice system, and 

of the risk of wrongful prosecutions and convictions if the policy of evidence suppression was 

not solved. See infra AS 311-312.

312. Judge Shadur’s April 1982 Order was amended in September 1982 when it was 

learned that detectives were circumventing the court’s order, and Detective Division Notice 82-2 

was issued by the Superintendent to preserve all notes. In addition, on March 31, 1983, Judge 

Shadur issued an order in which he found (a) CPD personnel were applying Detective Division 

Notice 82-2 “in an improperly restrictive and grudging manner under which detectives could 

consider their investigative writings as their personal property (and thus not under Detective 

Division control)”; (b) two Area Commanders interpreted the new directive so that detectives 

were still free to destroy their own investigative writings under the guise of “personal property”; 

(c) official reports were sometimes “prepared from the perspective of what fits the preparer’s 

concept of the crime,” thereby omitting “highly relevant and sometimes exculpatory” 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 74 of 147 PageID #:51940
74 

information that “the preparer does not deem ‘pertinent.’” Ex. 70 (Shadur Order) at 5-6, 13; Ex. 

71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 72:9-73:4, 76:9-24, 203:19-204:21, 214:18-24. 

313. City officials were aware at the time that the practice of evidence suppression and 

non-disclosure documented above resulted in wrongful prosecutions and convictions. Ex. 71 

(Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 102:2-23, 205:18-206:12; Ex. 72 (Hickey 2016 Fields Trial 

Testimony) at 12:3-13:20; Palmer v. City of Chicago, 562 F. Supp. 1067 (N.D. Ill. 1983) 

(finding that the failure to retain documents with investigative information “creates a serious 

potential of deprivation of defendants’ constitutional rights,” and that “[s]uch deprivations have 

in fact occurred in the past.”).

XXI. Policy of Withholding Exculpatory Evidence 

314. In April 1982, after a Temporary Restraining Order was issued in the Palmer 

litigation, CPD issued a teletype to commanding officers informing them of the TRO, as well as 

Detective Division Notice 82-2.94. See Ex. 77 (S.O. 82-2 and Memo) at 4; Ex. 76 (Hickey Dep. 

in Kluppelberg) at 201. 

315. CPD Rule 30(b)(6) designee Hickey explained that Notice 82-2 was “a quick and 

dirty document” designed to implement the TRO but was “not very workable.” Ex. 76 (Hickey 

Dep. in Kluppelberg) at 221-22, 224-25. 

316. Notice 82-2 and the corresponding teletype did not require detectives to put notes 

or memos into a central repository, and it did not require detectives to preserve notes or memos 

that had not already been turned into a police file. Ex. 77 (S.O. 82-2 and Memo) at 7; Ex. 76 

(Hickey Dep. in Kluppelberg ) at 212-13. 

317. Notice 82-2 lacked procedures to gather or inventory notes, memos, or other 

documents, and did not require that detectives put notes or memos into unit investigative files, or 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 75 of 147 PageID #:51941
75

even whether they had to preserve such notes not in the file. Ex. 77 (S.O. 82-2 and Memo); Ex. 

76 (Hickey Dep. in Kluppelberg) at 161, 212-13.

318. Six months after Notice 82-2 went into effect, Commander Stibich testified that 

detectives continued to believe that their notes and memos were personal property, for personal 

use, and that they were not required to turn them into a department file, or even preserve them at 

all. Ex. 70 (Shadur Order) at 12. Commander Stibich acknowledged that “[w]hat’s pertinent to 

one [detective] might not be to another.” Id. at 6-7.

319. Judge Shadur found that Notice 82-2 responded to the TRO in “an improperly 

restrictive and grudging manner, under which detectives could consider their investigative 

writings as their personal property (and thus not ‘under Detective Division control’) and 

therefore outside the preservation requirements of Notice 82-2.” Ex. 70 (Shadur Order) at 12.

320. In January 1983, Special Order 83-1 replaced Detective Division Notice 82-2. It 

applied only to detectives assigned to Violent Crimes. Special Order 83-1 defined the term 

“Investigative File” and created something called an Investigative File Case Folder to secure 

documents relating to a criminal investigation. Special Order 83-1 also created an “Investigative 

File inventory sheet,” to catalog all the documents placed in the Investigative File, that was to be 

forwarded to the Records Division when felony charges were approved. Special Order 83-1 also 

created General Progress Reports (“GPRs”). The GPR forms were to be used by detectives for 

taking handwritten notes or writing “to-from memos” to their colleagues. Ex. 78 (S.O. 83-1); Ex. 

76 (Hickey Dep. in Kluppelberg) at 170:7-9; Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera ) at 227.

321. Special Order 83-1 created a requirement for detectives to place handwritten 

GPRs and other investigative materials in the investigative file. It also required detectives to fill 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 76 of 147 PageID #:51942
76

out CPD case report forms, such as supplementary reports, documenting relevant information 

previously recorded on a GPR or other miscellaneous documents. Ex. 78 (S.O. 83-1).

322. Hickey considered S.O. 83-1 a “major change in the way notes were considered 

within the police department,” yet acknowledged there was never a survey or audit about how its 

implementation went. Ex. 75 (April 10, 2014 Hickey Testimony, Fields v. City of Chicago) at 

2053:24-2054:1; Ex. 74 (Hickey Dep. in Fields) at 43:1-4 (“Q. Was there anything done after the 

implementation of 83-1 to survey or to audit how the process was going, the new process? A. 

Not to my knowledge.”).

323. Judge Shadur found Special Order 83-1 to be deficient, including for the 

following reasons: (1) there was no obligation to create an investigative case file folder until 

someone was arrested and charges were approved, leaving the risk of selective 

retention/disclosure during the investigation; (2) it offered no guidance on what information a 

detective should deem “relevant” information to include in official reports, leaving discretion for 

detectives to withhold information on their subjective assessment of its relevance; (3) it failed to 

ensure that any detective receiving information related to an investigation not assumed to him 

will forward the information to the assigned detective, so that information is included in the 

investigative file folder; and (4) it lacks any provision defining how the CPD responds to a 

subpoena or request to produce information related to a criminal proceeding. Ex. 70 (Shadur 

Order) at 16-17.

324. Special Order 83-1 was replaced by Special Order 83-2 in May 1983. Ex. 78 & 

Ex. 79 (Special Orders 83-1, 83-2); Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 225, 227:7-229:6. 

325. Special Order 83-2 made a few changes: (1) to require detectives to create records 

reflecting all relevant information; (2) to require detectives to pass along information they 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 77 of 147 PageID #:51943
77

receive about another crime to the detective investigating that other crime; (3) to transmit a copy 

of the investigative file inventory sheet to either the Office of Legal Affairs or State’s Attorney’s 

Office for its proper disclosure to criminal defendants; and (4) to create an Investigative File 

Control Card. Ex. 79 (S.O. 83-2).

326. S.O. 83-2 still: (1) did not require a single repository for all investigative 

information maintained by a lead investigator; (2) applied only to detectives, and explicitly 

excluded from its directives all other officers involved in investigative major crimes; (3) 

provided no guidance about what information a detective was required to include in a 

supplementary report beyond information deemed relevant, (4) provided no guidance about how 

information should be communicated or documented among detectives; (5) provided no policy 

directive or procedure to ensure production of investigative files; (6) relied on inventory sheets 

instead of actual file disclosures; and (7) lacked an audit/oversight mechanism. Ex. 79 (S.O. 83-

2); Ex. 76 (Hickey Dep. in Kluppelberg) at 236-38. 

327. Special Order 86-3 replaced S.O. 83-2 in May 1986. It was substantively identical 

to S.O. 83-2, except for the addition of an auditing provision. Compare Ex. 79 (Special Order 83-

2) with; Ex. 80 (Special Order 86-3); Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 100:9-101:12, 227, 245-

47, 249. 

328. The modifications in S.O. 86-3 eliminated the requirement that the inventory 

sheet be forwarded to defense attorneys when a criminal subpoena or discovery motion was 

received and eliminated the requirement that handwritten notes or other investigative materials 

be submitted “promptly (normally at the end of each tour of duty).” Compare Ex. 79 (Special 

Order 83-2) at 4 with Ex. 80 (Special Order 86-3); Ex. 73 (Winstrom Dep in Reyes) at 106-07.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 78 of 147 PageID #:51944
78

329. S.O. 86-3 still (1) did not require a single repository for all investigative 

information maintained by a lead investigator; (2) permitted detectives to maintain handwritten 

notes as personal files for longer periods of time, by removing the requirement of “prompt” 

documentation; (3) still provided no guidance about what information a detective was required to 

include in a supplementary report beyond information deemed relevant; (4) and left defense 

attorneys with no mechanisms to determine whether their materials were complete without an 

inventory sheet. Ex. 80 (S.O. 86-3); Ex. 73 (Winstrom Dep. in Reyes) at 98-99. The order 

contained only one express instruction that only one thing from the investigative file needed to 

be disclosed: the inventory log. Ex. 81 (Rivera Trial Tr. 6/18/18) at 2247-2248, Ex. 82 (Rivera

Trial Tr. 6/21/18) at 3229-3231; 3247-3248. 

330. In 1988, Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) were created to govern the work 

of detectives. Chapter 18 of the SOP, the relevant portion of the new SOPs dealing with the 

documentation and disclosure of investigative information, contains “no substantive changes of 

any kind” from S.O. 86-3. Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 249:19-251:5; Ex. 80 (Winstrom 

Dep in Reyes) at 125:5-126:7 (“Q. And would you agree with me that looking at the [SOP] 

policy here, it is basically the same policy as what is contained in [S.O.] 86-3? A. I agree.”), 208-

210. 

331. 30(b)(6) representative Hickey described the City’s process of disclosing police 

records to prosecutors and criminal defendants as an “art form” of informal, on-the-job training, 

and could not think of any directives written to ensure proper disclosure of necessary 

information, including exculpatory information, in response to a subpoena request. (Ex. 71, 

Hickey Dep in Rivera, at 160:7-22, 161:10-163:24).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 79 of 147 PageID #:51945
79 

XXII. The City’s Admissions Regarding Policy Deficiencies

332. Despite an auditing requirement added to Special Order 86-3, the City’s 

designated representatives were unaware of a single instance of such auditing ever taking place, 

or of any document in existence indicating that someone had done the type of inspection required 

by S.O. 86-3. Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 178:4-13, 244-45, 249:11-17; Ex. 73 (Winstrom 

Dep. in Reyes) at 208-210, 120-121; Ex. 72 (Hickey Fields Testimony) at 43:1-4. 

333. Detectives were not disciplined for failure to comply with the new Special Orders, 

and Hickey testified that he had no knowledge whether, after the implementation of S.O. 83-1, 

there was anything done to survey or audit the implementation of the policy. Ex. 71 (Hickey 

Dep. in Rivera) at 178:15-179:2, 187:6-10; Ex. 74 (Hickey Fields Dep) at 10:12-22, 43:1-4. 

334. Hickey admitted that he did not know if every detective followed S.O. 86-3. Ex. 

72 (Hickey Fields Testimony) at 37:13-20. 

335. Despite Judge Shadur’s guidance regarding the deficiencies in the CPD policies, 

CPD never included a statement or directive in its policy to produce the entire contents of the 

investigative files, including the newly created General Progress Reports. Instead, the Special 

Orders contained only an instruction to forward a copy of the inventory sheet to the CPD’s 

Record Division, without ever stating that the actual police reports in the files must be disclosed 

to prosecutors and criminal defendants. See, e.g., Ex. 80 (S.O. 86-3) (lacking any instruction to 

disclose entire investigative file and/or all supplementary reports and general progress reports to 

prosecutors and/or criminal defendants); Ex. 78 (S.O. 83-1) (same); Ex. 73 (Winstrom Dep. in 

Reyes) at 106:7-14, 20-24 (“Q. Is there some document that -- is there some other policy 

document that says, copy the entire investigative file and distribute this file in response to 

subpoenas? A. Policy document? Not that I'm aware of, no.”), 107:21-24. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 80 of 147 PageID #:51946
80

336. Despite Judge Shadur’s express guidance regarding the deficiencies in CPD’s 

policies, CPD never updated its policy to stop permitting a system of multiple, parallel files 

rather than a single centralized file. Ex. 80 (S.O. 86-3); Ex. 81 (Noble Testimony) at 4832, 4818-

19 (“[T]he Chicago Police Department has . . . essentially, three separate filing systems”--the 

investigative file, permanent retention file, and “working file”); Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) 

at 192-94; Ex. 76 (Hickey Dep. in Kluppelberg) at 295:20-296:4; Ex. 73 (Winstrom Dep. in 

Reyes) at 110-115.

337. The City acknowledges that its continued system of having multiple files of a 

centralized file, coupled with the lack of instruction or directive ordering or ensuring that the 

entire contents of the investigative files be produced, left detectives and subpoena personnel 

confused about their disclosure obligations. Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 36-37, 162-64, 

253-54 (testifying to subpoena clerks and detectives questioning what they were required to 

produce in response to subpoenas, including whether investigative files had to be produced); Ex. 

82 (Hickey/Spratte Trial Testimony in Rivera) at 3285:5-8; Ex. 73 (Winstrom Dep. in Reyes) at 

106-107, 189, 192-94, 209; Ex. 80 (S.O. 86-3); Ex. 70 (Shadur Order) at 9-10. 

338. Despite Judge Shadur’s express guidance regarding the deficiencies in CPD’s 

policies, the policy applied only to the Detective Division, and not investigators in other 

divisions and special units, including patrol officers and gang crimes officers. Ex. 80 (S.O. 86-3); 

Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 54-55, 86-88; Ex. 82 (Hickey/Spratte Trial Testimony in 

Rivera) at 3388:9-3389:5.

339. Despite Judge Shadur’s express guidance regarding the deficiencies in CPD’s 

policies, the policy failed to provide any definition of what was “relevant” or “pertinent” 

information that needed to be documented, thus permitting detectives to make subjective 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 81 of 147 PageID #:51947
81

decisions about what was relevant, and could do so based on subsequent information learned 

during the investigation. The City’s designees acknowledged that given this lack of instruction, 

detectives could reach different decisions about what needed to be documented. Detectives 

could, for example, determine that leads and investigative efforts into an alternate suspect could 

be deemed not pertinent or irrelevant, and thus would not need to be documented or disclosed. 

Ex. 80 (S.O. 86-3); Ex. 70 (Shadur Order) at 5-6; Ex. 76 (Hickey Dep. in Kluppelberg) at 237-

38, 339; Ex. 73 (Winstrom Dep. in Reyes) at 64-66, 89-90, 99:6-10 (“Q. Does this policy provide 

any guidance about what information is to be treated as relevant and not relevant? A. This policy 

just says relevant information, no.”).

340. The Subpoena Service Unit in the Records Division handled requests for 

discovery from prosecutors and criminal defendants, but CPD had no policies, procedures, 

checklists, or other documents requiring, or explaining, how the Subpoena Service Unit staff 

were supposed to gather all responsive documents, or providing guidance to assist them in 

requesting material from all the right repositories. As a result, the process of responding to 

requests for police files was more of an “art,” and whether prosecutors and criminal defendants 

received all of the documents and investigative material associated with a case was primarily a 

question of luck. Ex. 82 (Hickey Trial Testimony in Rivera) at 3284:17-19; Ex. 76 (Hickey Dep. 

in Kluppelberg) at 362-63; Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 36:11-37:4, 43-46, 185-87; Ex. 83 

(City of Chicago’s Amended Response to Plaintiff’s Seventeenth Set of Requests to Produce 

Documents to the City of Chicago) at 2-3; Ex. 73 (Winstrom Dep. in Reyes) at 192-94.

341. In 2020, the City of Chicago’s Office of Inspector General issued a report 

regarding the CPD’s practices concerning the disclosure of police records to criminal defendants 

and civil plaintiffs, which included a review of case studies from 2010-2013, information 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 82 of 147 PageID #:51948
82 

regarding nine instances in which the City was sanctioned by federal judges from May 2011 

through February 2018, and interviews with more than a dozen CPD employees. The OIG found 

that “CPD’s records management and production processes are inadequate to meet its 

constitutional and legal obligations.” Ex. 84 (June 2020 OIG Report) at 4-5 (finding that the 

units responsible for responding to subpoenas and records requests “cannot ensure that they are 

identifying and locating all responsive records for production” and that “members [of the 

Subpoena Unit] routinely do not attempt to identify paper records, as they cannot determine 

which of the CPD’s units may hold such records”). The Inspector General issued a follow-up 

report in 2021, following an inquiry into the status of corrective actions taken by the City of 

Chicago in response to its 2020 recommendations. In that report, the Inspector General 

concluded that “CPD has yet to implement most of the improvements to which it committed. 

Specifically, CPD has yet to conduct a comprehensive staffing and resource analysis, develop 

and implement standard operating procedures for the management and production of records, or 

develop necessary trainings.” In particular, it found that the CPD “cannot ensure that it identifies 

and produces all relevant records in its possession as required.” Without making these 

improvements, the Inspector General’s follow-up report concluded that “Not having made these 

improvements, CPD is now—just as it was when OIG published its 2020 report—unable to 

ensure that it can meet legal and constitutional obligations which are at the core of its function as 

a law enforcement agency. This is an area of very serious risk for CPD and for the City.” Ex. 85 

(Sept. 2021 OIG Follow-Up Report) at 2, 3, 4, 11. 

XXIII. Policies Did Not Meaningfully Change Over Time 

342. The City of Chicago has admitted that its written policies regarding the 

documentation and disclosure of investigative information did not change between 1983 and 

2012. Ex. 86 (Loughran Dep. in Taylor) at 40:12-16 (testifying that the CPD policy regarding 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 83 of 147 PageID #:51949
83

homicide files did not change from 1992 to 2012); Ex. 73 (Winstrom Dep. in Reyes) at 43:7-46:2 

(agreeing that the policies applying to documentation in homicide investigations from 1986 to 

1998 were “nearly identical,” and despite some “difference[s] in wording,” the “overall policy is 

the same”); see also id. at 46:19-23 (“Q. Okay. So in the period from 1986 through 1998, is it 

correct that the policies with regard to documentation of homicide investigations were the same 

across all detective areas? A. Correct.”); Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 119:7-9 (testifying 

that the policy regarding records retention was consistent from 1983 to 2011); see also id. at 

123:11-17 (same); Ex. 73 (Hickey Dep. in Fields) at 43:1-7 (noting that nothing was done after 

S.O. 83-1, effective in 1983, to review the document retention process, nor was there any new 

directive as to documentation in investigative or other informal files); see also Ex. 87 (City’s 

Responses to Request for Production and Requests to Admit in Iglesias litigation (Apr. 7, 2022)) 

(admitting no changes in 1980s and 90s, and providing no documentation to the contrary). 

343. Even though S.O. 83-1 was considered a “major change” in policy, no auditing or 

other steps were ever taken to ensure that the “major change” required by the Special Order were 

actually being implemented and followed. Ex. 75 (April 10, 2014 Hickey Testimony, Fields v. 

City of Chicago) at 2053:24-2054:1; Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 244, 247, 249; Ex. 72 

(Hickey Testimony from 2016 Fields Trial) at 35:11-25.

344. Rather than checking out the investigative file, where all memos and notes were 

supposed to be stored and preserved (on general progress reports), detectives reverted back to 

keeping personal files with their own copies of investigative material. Ex. 76 (Hickey Dep. in 

Kluppelberg) at 327-29.

345. The substantively unchanged documentation policy resulted in other wrongful 

prosecutions and convictions in which relevant investigative information was withheld from 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 84 of 147 PageID #:51950
84

criminal defendants, including for example, Nathson Fields, James Kluppelberg, Jacques Rivera, 

Arturo Reyes, and Gabriel Solache. Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 250:2-251:5 (testifying to 

unchanged nature of policy); Ex. 88 (Fields Street File); Ex. 89 (Rivera Street File); Ex. 90 

(Rivera Permanent Retention File); Ex. 91 (Order on Kluppelberg Certificate of Innocence); Ex. 

92 (Brasfield Report) Attachment I at 11, Attachment H at 40-45; Fields v. City of Chicago, No. 

10 C 1168, 2017 WL 4553411, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2017), aff’d, 981 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. 

2020).

346. Nathson Fields: Nathson Fields was convicted of the 1984 double murder of 

Jerome Smith and Talman Hickman. Fields’ conviction was thrown out after a court granted his 

petition for post- conviction relief; he was retried in 2009 and acquitted. During discovery in his 

subsequent civil lawsuit, a file of over a hundred pages of police reports and notes concerning 

the Smith/Hickman murders was located in a file cabinet at Area Central, along with files 

relating to other murders. The City admitted that the file had not been previously disclosed to 

Mr. Fields or to prosecutors. The documents newly produced in the previously undisclosed file, 

which were not contained in any of the earlier files, include handwritten notes, memos, and other 

documents identifying multiple alternate suspects and potential leads demonstrating that Nathson 

Fields was not involved in the Hickman and Smith homicides. It also included a previously 

undisclosed rap sheet for an alternate suspect with an issued on inquiry date stamp that 

undermined the prosecution’s theory of the case. Nathson Fields’s name, meanwhile, was never 

mentioned as a possible suspect in any of the non-disclosed documents. Ex. 88, Fields Street 

File; see also Ex. 93, Brasfield Report at 67- 68; Ex. 94, Fields Opinion on Post-Trial Motion; 

Ex. 93, Brasfield Report, Attachment H at 40-45.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 85 of 147 PageID #:51951
85

347. Fields’s police practices expert, Michael Brasfield, conducted a comprehensive 

analysis of 429 Chicago Police Department homicide files, summaries of which were introduced 

as substantive evidence, which was almost entirely unrebutted, and which showed that the policy 

of evidence suppression continued, at minimum, from 1983 to 1989, and from 1999 to 2009, 

across the City of Chicago, in Chicago Police Department Detective Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4. Ex. 95 

(Brasfield Summary of Voluminous Records—Comparing Basement, Criminal Defense and 

Permanent Retention Files).

348. Brasfield testified that approximately 80% of the criminal defense files were 

missing handwritten notes from the CPD files, 46% were missing general progress reports (on 

which detectives take notes), and 36% were missing inventories. Ex. 96 (Fields Trial Tr. 

11/29/16) at 3:6-4:13 (PM Transcript), 7:7-8:8 (PM Transcript), 126:4-130:19 (AM Transcript, 

regarding missing documents in permanent retention files).

349. In December 2016, the jury in Fields found that the failure to disclose the file of 

investigative information to Mr. Fields was the result of a pattern and practice of the Chicago 

Police Department, and awarded Mr. Fields compensatory damages of $22 million. Discovery in 

Fields revealed dozens of other undisclosed files in the Area Central basement. Ex. 95 (Brasfield 

Summary of Voluminous Records—Comparing Basement, Criminal Defense and Permanent 

Retention Files). At the trial in Mr. Fields’s case, additional evidence in support of the 

conclusion that the City had a practice of evidence suppression was presented, including the 

following:

a. Defendants and other CPD employees testified that there were frequently 

widespread departures from written policies; that they did not even know new 

written policies had been put in place in the 1980s; that they considered 

investigative materials their personal property, and would not transcribe all 

investigative leads into official reports; and that there was no mechanism for 

reporting missing investigative materials. See Ex. 97 (Fields Trial Tr. 11/23/16) at 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 86 of 147 PageID #:51952
86

78:8-25, 79:1-8; Ex. 98 (Fields Trial Tr. 12/1/16) at 124:25-125:23; Ex. 99 

(Fields Trial Tr. 11/17/16) at 103:5-8, 112:3-9; Ex. 100 (Fields Trial Tr. 

11/28/16) at 30:23-31:22, 31:23- 25, 32:14-24, 52:5-112; Ex. 101 (Fields Trial Tr. 

12/6/16) at 85:8-86:7, 95:22-96:5, 97:2-19; Ex. 102 (Fields Trial Tr. 12/5/16) at 

137:5-22.

b. Files of important investigative material were kept and suppressed in violation of 

Brady in the cases of Jon Fulton, Timothy Malone, and James Crockett. Ex. 97 

(Fields Trial Tr. 11/23/16) at 12:3-14:15, 17:1-21:12, 18:10-17; Ex. 96 (Fields

Trial Tr. 11/29/16) at 133-136 (PM Transcript); 111:2-115:18 (AM Transcript); 

Ex. 103 (Fields Trial Tr. 12/8/16) at 29:13-31:8, 31:9-34:5, Ex. 104 (Fields Trial 

Tr. 12/7/16) at 69:8-21; Ex. 105 (Fields Trial Tr. 11/30/16) at 31:2-15, 32:11-

33:20, 41:8-42:8; 58:1-61:1.

350. James Kluppelberg: James Kluppelberg was convicted for a 1984 fire that killed 

six people, and later exonerated for that crime. In 2014, during Kluppelberg’s subsequent civil 

case, a new file was discovered that had never been disclosed in the criminal proceedings. That 

file contained investigative materials from the 1984 Area Three investigation, and included 

critical exculpatory information such as handwritten notes that a neighbor had reported there was 

loose and dangerous wiring in the basement that got wet sometimes (undermining the arson 

determination and supporting the evidence that the fire was accidental); numerous references to 

individuals who had had arguments or fights with the victims; and a memo between detectives 

that recounted a statement from an alternate suspect named Isabel Ramos who had started 

another porch fire in a building nearby just hours before the fire for which Kluppelberg was 

convicted. Ramos also reported that she had been intoxicated at the time, could not remember 

what she had done, but thought she perhaps set other fires. (Ex. 107, Opinion on Kluppelberg 

Certificate of Innocence; Ex. 108, Brasfield Report in Kluppelberg, at 11, 33; Ex. 106, 

Kluppelberg Street File, at CITY-KLUP_004329-4356 (produced by the City and referenced in 

Ex. 108); Ex. 191 (City’s Resp. to Plaintiff’s Third Set of Request to Admit Nos. 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 

24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 87 of 147 PageID #:51953
87

351. Jacques Rivera: In 1988, Defendant Guevara caused 12-year-old Orlando Lopez 

to falsely identify Jacques Rivera as the person who shot Felix Valentin. As a result, Rivera was 

convicted of the Valentin murder. In 2010, the Area investigative file for the Valentin file was 

produced for the first time, and was compared against the original file from Rivera’s criminal 

defense attorney, now-Judge Wadas, who had preserved it. Ex. 109 (Rivera Post-Trial Mot, June 

15, 2018 Tr. of Proceedings) at 2202. It turned out that Wadas never received a number of 

important documents from the investigative file during the criminal proceedings, including an 

August 27 GPR containing the critical first memorialization of an eyewitness’s account that put 

him “by the store” (instead of coming from the store, as was recorded in the police report), and 

an August 27 GPR regarding the witness that contradicted Defendants’ story about an 

identification procedure that happened on that date. Ex. 110, (Rivera Trial Tr. 6/12/18) at 1385-

1389, 1403-12, Ex. 81 (Rivera Trial Tr. 6/18/18) at 2244-2251. Wadas testified that, if he had 

received the documents, they would have provided powerful evidence of his client’s innocence, 

and the trial prosecutor admitted as much as well. Ex. 110 at 1387-88 (Rivera Trial Tr. 6/12/18); 

Ex. 82 (Rivera Trial Tr. 6/21/18) at 3108. Hickey, the City’s 30(b)(6) designee, admitted that all 

of these documents should have been disclosed. Ex. 109 (Rivera Trial Tr. 6/15/18) at 3289:24-

3290:3, 3292:15-3295:9); 

352. Also during the Felix Valentin shooting investigation, Defendant Guevara falsely 

claimed that the victim, Valentin, identified Jacques Rivera as his shooter before he died. Ex. 

115 (9/16/88 Supplementary Report) at 2. Defendant Guevara reported to have obtained this 

identification at a time when the victim was in a medically induced coma, unresponsive to any 

stimuli, and laying in a bed that was in constant motion to prevent his lungs from filling with 

fluid and killing him. Ex. 116 (9/1/88 Supplementary Report) at 2-3.Valentin could not possibly 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 88 of 147 PageID #:51954
88

have provided the information that Defendant Guevara attributed to him. Additionally, 

Defendant Guevara requested Rivera’s rap sheet before any witness had provided evidence 

making him a suspect. Ex. 209 at 135-138. In 2011, Rivera filed a post-conviction petition based 

on actual innocence and received an evidentiary hearing. Ex. 111 (Amended Petition for PostConviction Relief Based on Actual Innocence). In 2011, Lopez testified at an evidentiary hearing 

that, after seeing the shooter give another man a gang handshake, he testified there was “no 

doubt in my mind” that man was the shooter and that Rivera was the “wrong guy.” Ex. 112 

(Rivera PC Hearing Tr. 5/23/11) at 58; Ex. 114 (9/5/12 Order granting Petition for Certificate of 

Innocence) at 4-5. As a result, Rivera received a new trial. Ex. 113 (9/13/11 Order granting new 

trial). Ultimately, the State’s Attorney dropped all charges and Rivera was granted a certificate of 

innocence. Ex. 114 (9/5/12 Order granting Petition for Certificate of Innocence).

353. After Jacques Rivera’s exoneration, he brought suit against Defendant Guevara. 

During trial, Rivera’s expert, Michael Brasfield, as well as the City’s own witness, James 

Hickey, testified that the CPD was fully aware that it had an evidence suppression problem in 

1982 and 1983. Ex. 109 (Rivera Post-Trial Mot., June 15, 2018, Tr. of Proceedings) at 2182-

2184; Ex. 82 (Hickey/Spratte Testimony in Rivera at 3210:21-3211:16, 3275:17-3276:10, 

3279:11-3280:7). Brasfield testified that the City's written policies were plainly deficient. 

Among other things, he opined that the new policy: (a) retained the decentralized record-keeping 

system that perpetuated the system of multiple, unofficial parallel files at the heart of the Jones 

and Palmer litigation; (b) did not cover gang crimes units and other investigators involved in 

homicide investigations; (c) did not define what constitutes relevant information that must be 

documented in reports; and (d) did not contain instructions to ensure that the investigative file 

and each of the various other parallel sources of police documents were searched for and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 89 of 147 PageID #:51955
89

produced in response to criminal court subpoenas. Ex. 109 (Rivera Post-Trial Mot., June 15, 

2018, Tr. of Proceedings) at 2186-2193. 

354. A federal jury found that Guevara had violated Rivera’s civil rights and awarded 

Rivera $17 million in damages, as well as $175,000 in punitive damages against Defendant 

Guevara, his partner Steve Gawrys, and his supervisor Ed Mingey. Ex. 117, Rivera Judgment.

355. Reyes/Solache: In 1998, Detective Guevara repeatedly struck Gabriel Solache on 

the side of his head and in the stomach while Solache was chained to the wall of a locked 

interrogation room. After 40 hours of interrogation, Solache gave a false statement so the beating 

would stop. Solache sustained permanent hearing loss to his left ear as a result of his abuse. 

(See Ex. 118, Suppression Hearing Testimony of Gabriel Solache, People v. Solache & Reyes, 

98 CR 12440, at Bluhm 018579, 018586-97). In that same investigation, Detective Guevara 

repeatedly threatened and beat Arturo Reyes in an attempt to coerce Reyes into falsely 

implicating himself. After two days of isolation and interrogation, Reyes finally gave in and 

falsely confessed. (See Ex. 119, Suppression Hearing Testimony of Arturo Reyes, People v. 

Solache & Reyes, 98 CR 12440, at Bluhm 018478, 018482-502). The City of Chicago 

subsequently determined that Solache and Reyes were abused during their interrogations and that 

their convictions should not stand. (See Ex. 120, Lassar Report Regarding Solache and Reyes, 

Dated 12/12/14, at AR-L 522127, AR-L 522138-39). Guevara has taken the Fifth in regard to all 

allegations regarding Solache and Reyes. (Ex. 121, Testimony of Reynaldo Guevara in People v. 

Arturo Reyes & Gabriel Solache, 98 CR 12440, at JR-L 049858-65). 

356. The Defendant Officers in this case testified to having no knowledge of the 

requirements in the new Special Orders, to any training on the relevant Special Orders, or the 

obligation to preserve notes or disclose exculpatory information. Ex. 21 at 51:15-52:9 (Daley 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 90 of 147 PageID #:51956
90 

testifying that he would document investigative efforts he took if he believed them “pertinent to 

the investigation.”), Ex. 21 at 150:21-152:4 (Daley testifying that he would not say there was a 

“hard, fast rule” to what had to be documented) Ex. 38 at 185:2-7 (Guevara invoking the Fifth 

when asked if, under Chicago Police Department policy and training, he had to document 

circumstances when he showed gang books to eyewitnesses), Ex. 38 at 95:11-98:13 (Guevara 

repeatedly invoking the Fifth when asked questions about note-taking policies generally as a 

detective and taking notes specifically during the Fred homicide investigation). 

XXIV. Report of Plaintiff’s Retained Expert Thomas Tiderington 

357. Plaintiff retained Thomas Tiderington, a police practices expert with over forty 

years of experience in law enforcement, to provide opinion testimony about the Chicago Police 

Department’s policies and practices related to the creation, maintenance, storage, preservation, 

and disclosure of investigative materials in homicide cases, as well as the police investigation in 

this case. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 2, 4. 

358. Tiderington spent 44 years as a law enforcement officer, including serving as a 

Police Chief for two decades. He served with three different police departments and as a Group 

Supervisor for the United States Drug Enforcement Administration’s South Florida Regional 

Task Force. Tiderington has trained over 10,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement 

officers on police practices and criminal investigations, and has been an instructor and lecturer at 

numerous regional, national, and international law enforcement training events on a wide variety 

of police practices and criminal investigations. In his capacity as Police Chief over twenty years, 

Tiderington reviewed and approved policy and procedures relating to every aspect of police 

operations, including criminal investigations, case development, report writing, maintenance and 

retention of police records, complaints against police officers, training, supervision, and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 91 of 147 PageID #:51957
91

employee discipline. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 2-3; see also Attachment D to Tiderington 

Report (curriculum vitae)).

359. Tiderington reviewed the Special Orders promulgated in the wake of Jones and 

Palmer, discussed above. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 38-43. He concluded that the policies 

were deficient on their face to solve the official policy of evidence suppression of which the City 

was on notice. Id. at 43. He also concluded that the CPD, through its policies and practices, 

created an environment where officers could routinely and systematically ignore city policies and 

the law with impunity and encouragement of that behavior, and despite formal written policies 

related to investigations and accountability, detectives routinely violated common and accepted 

investigative practices as a matter of unofficial policy or widespread investigative practices. Ex. 

23 (Tiderington Report) at 6-7. Among other things, he concluded that the policymakers were 

aware of policy deficiencies, and that the policies (a) allowed for the continued use of a 

decentralized, parallel file system in which investigative material was kept in different places, 

creating the risk that material would not be gathered from all of those locations; (b) allowed for 

too much discretion to detectives about determining what is relevant and needs to be documented 

in official reports and disclosed; (c) did nothing to ensure that the subpoena responders ensured 

that investigative material from all locations is disclosed; and (d) lacked adequate training and 

monitoring/auditing to ensure compliance with the special orders. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 

43-46.

360. In addition to reviewing the relevant Special Orders, deposition testimony, and 

many other documents to assess the Chicago Police Department’s practices and adherence to its 

policies, Tiderington reviewed and analyzed the 475 Area 5 investigative files from 1991-1995 

that were provided to him for analysis, as well as the 344 Area 5 investigative files from 1995-

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 92 of 147 PageID #:51958
92

1998 that were provided to him for analysis, and compared them to available permanent 

retention files for those time periods. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 47; see also Attachment B to 

Tiderington Report (materials reviewed), Attachments E & F. In addition, Tiderington compared 

corresponding criminal defense files to investigative files and permanent retention files from 

Area 5 homicide investigations for the period from 1995-1998. Id. at 47. The case-by-case 

comparison of all of these file types is contained in Attachments E and F to Tiderington’s 

Report. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 52; see Attachments E and F. 

361. Tiderington also reviewed the expert reports of Michael Brasfield in Fields v. City 

of Chicago and Rivera v. City of Chicago, which involve a similar review of hundreds more 

homicide files and corresponding files, as well as the police homicide files in Iglesias, Sierra, 

Reyes/Solache, Rivera, Fields and Kluppelberg. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 32.

362. First, Tiderington analyzed the investigative files from each time period to see 

whether they demonstrated compliance to the new special orders. Tiderington found that 

approximately 50% (1991-1995) and approximately 46% (1995-1998) of investigative files he 

reviewed contained handwritten notes not taken on general progress reports. Ex. 23 (Tiderington 

Report) at 48. Tiderington’s analysis found many examples where the information on 

handwritten notes not transferred to official reports was “potentially exculpatory,” including 

handwritten notes containing cryptic notations on a page without any context: a name, phone 

number, address, etc., where the relevance of the information and its potential inculpatory or 

exculpatory value is lost without being transcribed into an official report. Ex. 23 (Tiderington 

Report) at 50. His findings were consistent with Brasfield’s findings in Rivera (61%) and Fields 

(82%). Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 48; see also Ex. 23 (Attachments G and H to Tiderington’s 

report) at 8. Relatedly, Tiderington found no handwritten notes or GPRs in the entire 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 93 of 147 PageID #:51959
93

investigative file from Guevara or Halvorsen, the lead detectives in this case. In his decades of 

experience, he was “not aware of a single homicide investigation in which the lead detectives 

took no notes.” Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 29.

363. Tiderington also found that detectives continued using to-from memos, which 

were also not included in official forms–despite the Special Orders’ requirements and the City’s 

knowledge of this deficiency. Ex. 70 (Shadur Order) at 4-6; Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 48. In 

his review, he found that approximately 10% (1991-1995) and approximately 28% (1995-1998) 

of the files he reviewed contained to-from memos not on official police forms. Id. at 48. Again, 

his findings were consistent with Brasfield’s findings in Rivera (20%) and Fields (43%). Ex. 23 

(Tiderington Report) at 48.

364. Further, Tiderington found that inventory sheets were not consistently included in 

the investigative files (and when they were included, the majority of them were incomplete). 

From 1991-1995, his review revealed that 24% (1991-1995) and 17% (1995-1998) of total 

investigative files he reviewed contained no inventory sheet that the Special Orders required as a 

means to ensure disclosure. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 49. 

365. Second, Tiderington reviewed the permanent retention files, which contain only 

official reports, standing alone. He concluded that, while in most police departments around the 

country the official reports contain multiple storylines, including leads that point to other 

suspects and to dead-ends, CPD official reports only tell one storyline, the evidence developed 

against the person ultimately charged. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 49-50. He found that 

permanent retention files routinely lacked an inventory sheet as required by policy. Ex. 23 

(Tiderington Report) at 51.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 94 of 147 PageID #:51960
94

366. Third, Tiderington compared the investigative files to 64 corresponding criminal 

defense files for the years 1995-1998. He concluded that important investigative materials were 

regularly withheld from the criminal defense files for criminal defendants, as every one of the 

criminal defense files he reviewed were missing documents contained in the corresponding 

homicide files. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 51-54 ; Attachment E to Tiderington Report; Ex. 

70 (Shadur Order) at 17.

367. The case-by-case comparison of all of these file types is contained in Attachments 

E to Tiderington’s Report. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 52-54; see Attachment E. 

368. Tiderington also identified examples of files where documents contained in the 

homicide files and missing from the criminal defense files were important investigative 

materials, where significant discoverable items that should have been disclosed were routinely 

absent. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 54. The five examples for which he discussed at length the 

withheld investigative material that would have aided the defendant and therefore should have 

been disclosed under standard police procedures are the following: (1) RD # C687989 

(Defendant Kim Mathis); (2) RD #Z475236 (Defendant Ardell Clemons); (3) RD #B442532 

(Defendant Oscar Soto); (4) RD #B023979 (Defendant Leon Fields); and (5) RD #A403252 

(Defendant Guy Rainey). For each of the five cases, Tiderington reviewed corresponding State’s 

Attorney’s Office files. In each, the police documents were withheld, were of potential 

exculpatory value, and were not given to prosecutors. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 55-58; Ex. 

126 (Tiderington Deposition in Reyes) at 601:11-603:8.

369. Tiderington stated that his findings in each of these cases and in the Fred 

investigation itself are consistent with the facts and circumstances of other wrongful conviction 

cases involving CPD in which exculpatory information was held and that Tiderington reviewed 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 95 of 147 PageID #:51961
95

for his report, including Fields v. City of Chicago, Kluppelberg v. City of Chicago, Rivera v. 

City of Chicago, Reyes/Solache v. City of Chicago, Sierra v. City of Chicago, and Iglesias v. 

City of Chicago. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 58-64.

370. The analysis that Tiderington conducted in this case is the same one he conducted 

in Iglesias, Sierra, and Reyes/Solache, and the one Michael Brasfield conducted in Rivera and 

Fields, and his findings are consistent with Brasfield’s. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 58-64. In 

Fields, Brasfield testified that approximately 80% of the criminal defense files were missing 

handwritten notes from the CPD files, 46% were missing general progress reports (on which 

detectives take notes), and 36% were missing inventories. Ex. 96 (Fields Trial Tr. 11/29/16) at 

3:6-4:13 (PM Transcript), 7:7-8:8 (PM Transcript), 126:4-130:19 (AM Transcript, regarding 

missing documents in permanent retention files). In particular, Tiderington’s finding that the 

1991-1995 Area 5 investigative files demonstrate that the City’s problems with filekeeping, 

documentation, and disclosure of investigative information first identified in Jones/Palmer

persisted under the policies of the CPD is the same conclusion that he reached with regard to the 

1995-1998 Area 5 investigative files, and that Brasfield reached with regard to 1985-1991 Area 5 

investigative files, and 1984-1989 Area 1 (primarily) investigative files. Ex. 23 (Tiderington 

Report) at 48; Ex. 92 (Brasfield Report in Rivera) at 43-45; Ex. 93 (Brasfield Report in Fields) at 

15-19. 

371. Tiderington also reviewed the homicide files in the case of James Kluppelberg, 

and appended Mr. Brasfield’s report in Kluppelberg to his expert report. In that case, Mr. 

Brasfield’s expert report revealed that, of the investigative files produced to Brasfield (from 

1983-1991), there were (1) repeated instances of not using official forms to ensure file integrity, 

including that there was a widespread practice of disregarding the use of Major Crime 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 96 of 147 PageID #:51962
96

Worksheets, Investigative Case File Controls, Supervisory (Chain of Command) Reviews, 

Detective Division Personnel Forms, and Case Assignment Slips; (2) Material information was 

repeatedly omitted from official police reports, including 100% of the case files reviewed being 

replete with examples of handwritten pages and informal memos between detectives containing 

potentially exculpatory information regarding leads for other avenues of investigation, as well as 

names or descriptions of possible alternative suspects, additional witnesses, and possible alibi 

witnesses; (3) incomplete investigative files; (4) permanent retention files containing limited 

information; and (5) incomplete inventories or no indication that inventories were sent to 

Records Divisions. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at pgs. 423-439 (pgs. 43-59 of Brasfield’s 

Report in Kluppelberg).

372. Tiderington also confirms that his findings—that the CPD’s policies related to the 

documentation, storage/preservation, and disclosure of information learned during homicide 

investigations was contrary to generally accepted police practices—are consistent with the 

findings of the City of Chicago’s own Office of Inspector General, whose 2020 report stated that 

“CPD’s records management and production processes are inadequate to meet its constitutional 

and legal obligations.” Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 32; Ex. 84 (June 2020 OIG Report) at 4-5 

(finding that the units responsible for responding to subpoenas and records requests “cannot 

ensure that they are identifying and locating all responsive records for production” and that 

“members [of the Subpoena Unit] routinely do not attempt to identify paper records, as they 

cannot determine which of the CPD’s units may hold such records”); see also Ex. 85 (Sept. 2021 

OIG Follow-Up Report) at 2. 

373. On May 25, 2023, Mr. Tiderington supplemented his report after receiving the 

Cook County Public Defender’s file for Demetrius Johnson’s criminal proceedings, including 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 97 of 147 PageID #:51963
97

notes from Mr. Johnson’s public defender, Jack Carey, of his interviews with Mr. Johnson and 

various witnesses. Ex. 230 (Tiderington Supp.) at 2.

374. After reviewing Mr. Carey’s notes, Mr. Tiderington concluded that his opinions 

expressed in his expert report have not changed, but in fact that his review of the notes 

“corroborates and strengthens [his] opinions, since the notes are entirely consistent with [his] 

opinions” that Defendants displayed tunnel vision when conducting improperly suggestive 

lineups and that they failed to disclose the Erickson Report, which is contrary to generally 

accepted police practices. Ex. 230 (Tiderington Supp.) at 2.

375. During expert discovery, the Defendants disclosed four retained experts. Among 

them, they disclosed two former law enforcement practitioners, Ronald Muich and Ralph Rider, 

to opine about the underlying investigation in this matter. Neither of them offers any opinions 

about whether CPD’s policies regarding documentation and disclosure generally, and Special 

Orders 83-1 and its progeny specifically, are adequate or sound policies. In addition, the City 

also disclosed a former prosecutor, Bernard Murray, to opine about criminal discovery in Cook 

County; Mr. Murray has never worked in a police department, does not consider himself an 

expert in police policymaking, and is not offering any opinions about whether the documentation 

and disclosure policies at issue are adequate or sound policies. Ex. 127 (Defendants’ Rule 

26(a)(2) Disclosures); Ex. 231 (Rider Report) (no opinions regarding Monell claims, including 

the policies at issue or their adequacy to address problems identified during Jones/Palmer); Ex. 

232 (Muich Report) (same); Ex. 130 (Murray Deposition) at 53:10-20, 67:11-13, 74:7-13; Ex. 

278 (Muich Dep). at 55:9-14 (“. . . you are not giving opinions in your report about CPD policies 

or widespread practices as being appropriate or not, correct? A. That is correct.”).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 98 of 147 PageID #:51964
98 

XXV. Adjudication of Issue in Past Cases 

376. The existence of the City of Chicago’s official policy of suppressing exculpatory 

and/or impeaching investigative information 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.); Palmer 

v. City of Chicago, 562 F. Supp. 1067 (N.D. Ill.); and Jones v. City of Chicago, No. 87 C 2536 

(N.D. Ill.).

377. In Fields, the jury was instructed that, to find against the City of Chicago on the 

plaintiff’s policy claim, Fields had to prove, in pertinent part, that “[a]t the time of the 

concealment, it was the policy of the City of Chicago to conceal material exculpatory and/or 

impeachment evidence,” and that this policy (as defined in the instructions) caused the 

concealment of material exculpatory or impeachment evidence in the plaintiff’s criminal case, 

which harmed plaintiff as a result. Ex. 132 (Fields Final Jury Instructions) at 14-15. 

378. During trial, both sides presented extensive Monell evidence, which is collected 

in the parties’ post-trial submissions in Fields. Ex. 133 (Defs.’ Combined Post-Trial Mot. in 

Fields) at 9-16, 18-24; Ex. 134 (Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Post-Trial Mot. in Fields) at 12-25; Ex. 135 

(Defs.’ Reply in Support of Post-Trial Mot.) at 5-10. 

379. The City lost the jury trial in Fields. Ex. 136 (Fields Verdict Summary). A 

judgment was entered against the City on the jury’s verdict. Ex. 137 (Fields Judgment). After 

fully briefing the issues, the City’s post-trial motion was denied. Fields v. City of Chicago, 2017 

WL 3987356 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2017); Ex. 133 (Defs.’ Combined Post-Trial Mot. in Fields) at 

9-16, 18-24; Ex. 134 (Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Post-Trial Mot. in Fields) at 12-25; Ex. 135 (Defs.’ 

Reply in Support of Post-Trial Mot.) at 5-10. 

380. The denial of the City’s post-trial motion was affirmed on direct appeal, where the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded that the City had notice of deficient 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 99 of 147 PageID #:51965
99

policies with respect to withholding/disclosure of evidence “as a result of prior litigation that the 

use of street files and the failure to ensure the production of the evidence within those files 

presented a constitutional problem,” and that in Fields, the evidence presented sufficiently 

allowed the jury “to conclude that the City had failed to take the necessary steps to address that 

unconstitutional practice.” Fields v. City of Chicago, 981 F.3d 534, 563 (7th Cir. 2020).

381. In Rivera, the jury was instructed that to find against the City of Chicago on the 

policy claim, Rivera had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, in pertinent part, that 

“[t]he City of Chicago had a policy of concealing material exculpatory and/or impeachment 

evidence,” and that this policy (as defined in the previous paragraph) caused the violation of the 

plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Ex. 139 (Rivera Final Jury Instructions) at 26.

382. Based on that jury instruction, in June 2018, a federal jury entered a verdict for 

Rivera and against the City, and a judgment was entered against the City on the jury’s verdict. 

Ex. 117 (Rivera Judgment); Ex. 140 (Rivera Verdict).

383. During trial, both sides presented extensive Monell evidence, which was collected 

in the parties’ post-trial submissions in Rivera. Ex. 141 (City’s Mot. for New Trial) at 2-11; Ex. 

142 (Pl.’s Resp. to City’s Mot. for New Trial) at 78-109; Ex. 143 (City’s Reply In Support of 

Mot. for New Trial) at 3-23, 30-34.

384. During trial, Rivera’s expert, Michael Brasfield testified that the CPD was fully 

aware that it had an evidence suppression and non-disclosure problem in 1982 and 1983. Ex. 109 

(Rivera Post-Trial Mot., June 15, 2018, Tr. of Proceedings) at 2182-2184. Brasfield testified that 

the City's written policies were plainly deficient. Among other things, he opined that the new 

policy: (a) retained the decentralized record-keeping system that perpetuated the system of 

multiple, unofficial parallel files at the heart of the Jones and Palmer litigation; (b) did not cover 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 100 of 147 PageID #:51966
100

gang crimes units and other investigators involved in homicide investigations; (c) did not define 

what constitutes relevant information that must be documented in reports; and (d) did not contain 

instructions to ensure that the investigative file and each of the various other parallel sources of 

police documents were searched for and produced in response to criminal court subpoenas. Ex. 

109 (Rivera Post-Trial Mot., June 15, 2018, Tr. of Proceedings) at 2186-2193. 

385. Brasfield conducted an analysis of 435 CPD Area Five homicide files for the 

years 1985 to 1991, and his analysis of the data revealed that, in 61% of the cases, the 

requirement to create GPRs was not being complied with, in 37% of the cases the rule requiring 

inventories was disregarded, and in 92% of the cases documents contained in the unofficial 

investigative files were not making it to the criminal justice system. Ex. 109 (Rivera Trial Tr. 

6/15/18) at 2210-15, 2248. A full 100% of the files contained evidence of failures to follow the 

post-Palmer policies. Id. at 2214-15. Defendants’ expert, Bernard Murray, chose not to conduct 

his own corresponding review to see if the practices changed after the new policies were enacted, 

and so Brasfield’s testimony on these issues was unrebutted. Ex. 144 (Rivera Trial Tr. 6/26/18) 

at 3912-3919. 

386. Brasfield also testified that his review of the City’s official permanent retention 

files also revealed that the problems identified in Jones and Palmer persisted, as the CPD 

permanent retention files he reviewed only told the single branch of the story that let from crime 

to charged suspect, in effect excluding alternate suspects, different witnesses, and other types of 

materials a criminal defendant would need to build a defense. Ex. 109 (Rivera Trial Tr. 6/15/18) 

at 2218-20. Defendants’ expert, Bernard Murray, failed to rebut this testimony. Ex. 144 (Rivera

Trial Tr. 6/26/18) at 3912-19.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 101 of 147 PageID #:51967
101

387. Brasfield also compared criminal defense files to their corresponding 

investigative files and determined that materials from the investigative file were missing from 

more than 90% of the defense files, and 74% were missing police notes, the sort of crucial 

material that had been the subject of Jones and Palmer. Only 8% included the inventories that 

were supposed to be disclosed to defense attorneys under the new policies. Ex. 109 (Rivera Trial. 

Tr. 6/15/18) at 2226. Brasfield and Murray testified about multiple cases—e.g., Nathson Fields, 

James Kluppelberg, Samuel Robinson, Demetrius Johnson, David Quinones, Miguel Borrotto, 

and Curtis Kirkland—in which the withheld materials were the type of important investigative 

material that by all accounts should have been turned over, and that a jury could deem material. 

Ex. 81 (Rivera Trial Tr. 6/18/18) at 2252-2271; Ex. 144 (Rivera Trial Tr. 6/26/18) at 3846-54 

(Defense expert Murray), 3857-61, 3870-71 (Murray re: Robinson), 3872-83 (Murray re: 

Johnson, Quinones, Borrotto, Kirkland), 3884-85 (Murray re: Pacheco), 3886 (Murray re: 

Fields). Murray conceded that material missing from criminal defense attorney files was also 

missing from the prosecutor files, including many of the specific examples above of highly 

exculpatory material missing from criminal defense files. Ex. 144 (Rivera Trial Tr. 6/26/18) at 

3846-54, 3857-61, 3870-71, 3872-83, 3884-85, 3886, 3912-19).

388. Brasfield’s testimony also revealed that Gang Crimes officers were fully involved 

in homicide investigations, as they were in the Valentin investigation. Ex. 145 (Rivera Trial. Tr. 

6/22/18) at 3347-51, 3386-88, 3397, Ex. 146 (Rivera Trial Tr. 6/14/18) at 1694; 1702; 1766-

1767. Gang Crimes officers should have been subject to the rules governing detectives with 

regard to documenting investigative steps and ensuring that such material was produced to the 

criminal justice system. Ex. 109 (Rivera Trial Tr. 6/15/18) at 2191. But Gang Crimes officers 

were permitted to keep their own personal notes in their own set of parallel files. Ex. 145 (Rivera

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 102 of 147 PageID #:51968
102

Trial Tr. 6/22/18) at 3347-53, 3355, 3359-63, 3386-91, 3397, 3411, 3415, 3425-29; Ex. 109 

(Rivera Trial Tr. 6/15/18) at 2198-2200. They were exempt from these rules despite the City 

designee Hickey’s recommendation in the early 1980s that gang crime experts be included in the 

new Special Orders. Ex. 145 (Rivera Trial Tr. 6/22/18) at 3290-91, 3481; Ex. 109 (Rivera Trial 

Tr. 6/15/18) at 2195. 

389. The City’s own witness, James Hickey, confirmed in his trial testimony that the 

CPD was fully aware of its evidence suppression problem, see Ex. 82 (Hickey/Spratte Testimony 

in Rivera at 3210:21-3211:16, 3275:17-3276:10 (aware of Palmer/Jones litigation presenting a 

problem of non-disclosure of exculpatory information, and that Hickey’s subsequent 

investigation confirmed procedural flaws resulting in non-disclosure), yet did not implement any 

policy or formal training to ensure disclosure. Ex. 82 (Hickey/Spratte Testimony in Rivera at 

3279:11-3280:7). He confirmed that there was no auditing of detectives following Special 

Orders, either. Ex. 82 (Hickey/Spratte Testimony in Rivera at 3297:4-13).

390. Finally, there was testimony that, as a result of the pattern of evidence 

suppression, Rivera and his criminal attorney never received a number of important documents 

from the investigative file during the criminal proceedings, although the police department was 

responsible for ensuring their production. Ex. 82 (Hickey/Spratte Testimony in Rivera at 

3289:24-3290:3, 3292:15-3295:9); Ex. 110, (Rivera Trial Tr. 6/12/18) at 1385-1389, 1403-12, 

Ex. 81 (Rivera Trial Tr. 6/18/18) at 2244-2251.

391. The jury found that the failure to disclose evidence to Mr. Rivera was the result of 

a pattern and practice of the Chicago Police Department and awarded Mr. Rivera compensatory 

damages of $17 million. Ex. 117 (Rivera Entered Judgment).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 103 of 147 PageID #:51969
103 

392. The City’s post-trial motion was denied. Rivera v. Guevara, No. 12-CV-4428, 

2019 WL 13249674, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2019). 

393. In Kluppelberg v. Burge, 276 F. Supp. 3d 773, 776 (N.D. Ill. 2017), the district 

court granted Kluppelberg’s motion to apply collateral estoppel, stating that: 

To establish that the issues are the same and were necessarily decided, 

Kluppelberg must show that the jury in Fields, in order to have reached its 

verdict, had to have found that the City had a policy or practice of withholding 

material exculpatory and/or impeachment evidence, specifically street files.... 

The court finds that Kluppelberg has met that burden. That the jury must have 

found a policy or practice of withholding evidence is clear from the jury 

instructions in Fields, which stated that, to succeed on his Monell claim, Fields 

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ‘it was the policy of the City 

of Chicago to conceal material exculpatory and/or impeachment evidence.’.... 

Kluppelberg’s motion to apply collateral estoppel barring the City from arguing 

that it did not have a policy or practice of withholding material exculpatory and/or 

impeachment evidence contained in street files is granted.”

Id. at 776-79. 

XXVI. Fabricating Identifications 

394. Since before the 1991 Fred murder investigation, it was common knowledge in 

law enforcement that a large percentage of erroneous convictions were the result of incorrect or 

improper eyewitness identifications. Even in 1967, the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police (IACP) was releasing training material for law enforcement about the failures in witness 

perception, writing that “Eye-witness identification and description is regarded as a most 

unreliable form of evidence and causes more miscarriages of justice than any other method of 

proof. This weakness has long been recognized by the courts[.]” Ex. 150 (IACP Training Key 

#67, “Witness Perception,” 1967). 

395. From the 1967 Training materials until the time of the Fred investigation and 

thereafter, the risks of improper identification procedure continued to be acknowledged within 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 104 of 147 PageID #:51970
104

law enforcement. For example, in February of 1992, the IACP confirmed notice of that risk 

within a Model Policy pertaining to Show-ups, Photographic Identifications, and Line-ups, 

which cautioned law enforcement that “[w]ords or conduct of any type by officers that may 

suggest to the witness that the individual is or may be the perpetrator should be scrupulously 

avoided” to “minimize unjust accusations of innocent persons and to establish evidence that is 

reliable.” Ex. 148 (1992 IACP Model Policy) at 1. 

396. The 1993 Concepts and Issues Paper on Showups, Lineups and Photograph 

Identification accompanying the 1992 Model Policy explained the primary reasons that 

eyewitness identifications were frequently unreliable: frailties of human memory and perception, 

especially under stress; and the ease with which eyewitnesses could be influenced by suggestion 

Ex. 149 (1993 Concept and Issues Paper) at 1.

397. The 1993 IACP Concepts and Issues Paper also notes that eyewitness 

identifications are often erroneous and eyewitnesses are easily influenced by law enforcement. 

IACP advised that “[i]t is even desirable to tell the witness that the perpetrator may not be among 

those in the lineup”; and suggested that detectives should not pressure tentative witnesses to 

make positive identifications. It also notes that if more than one witness views the same lineup, 

the witnesses should be kept separate. It also says that witnesses should not be shown 

photographs of the suspect immediately before the lineup, and that detectives should 

“scrupulously avoid” doing anything that could suggest to the witness who the suspect is. Ex. 

149 (1993 IACP Concepts and Issues Paper) at 2.

398. Building upon decades of the awareness of such a risk of improper suggestion, the 

1993 IACP Concepts and Issues Paper quoted from the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision in United 

States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967), stating that “The influence of improper suggestions upon 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 105 of 147 PageID #:51971
105

identifying witnesses probably accounts for more miscarriages of justice than any other single 

factor. Perhaps it is responsible for more such errors than all other factors combined.” Ex. 149 

(1993 IACP Concept and Issues Paper,) at 1; see also Ex. 150 (IACP Training Key #67, 

“Witness Perception,” 1967) (confirming that the weakness of eyewitness identification and 

description has “long been recognized by the courts[.]”).

399. The City’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee, Lt. Foster, established that the City understood 

this big-picture IACP guidance. For instance, Lt. Foster testified that “[detectives] could generate 

unduly suggestive photo arrays, which . . . definitely erodes their authenticity and their value.” 

Ex. 58 (Foster Dep.) at 282:23-283:7; see also id. at 55:12-18 (Foster providing binding 

testimony regarding City of Chicago’s policies and practices from 1986 to 1998 related 

identification procedures). Foster also testified that it was understood by supervisory staff, 

including sergeants, lieutenants, and commanders of detectives that there were risks that an 

unduly suggestive photo array could lead to an identification that was not “authentic,” and that 

noncompliance with proper procedure could result “in identification of the photographs being 

abused” or being quashed by a motion in court. Ex. 58 (Foster Dep.) at 284:5-16, 286:6-287:10, 

288:19-25.

Policies

400. The City of Chicago’s policy regarding lineup procedures, effective at the time of 

the Fred investigation, was General Order (“GO”) 88-18. Ex. 30 (G.O. 88-18).

401. Foster testified that homicide detectives’ supervisors were aware that these 

policies applied to homicide detectives, and that the command staff, commanders, lieutenants, 

sergeants, and supervising homicide detectives knew why this policy existed, and if policies 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 106 of 147 PageID #:51972
106

were not followed, it could result in false identifications or misidentifications. Ex. 58 (Foster 

Dep.) at 285:4-15, 287:8-10.

402. A witness’s identification of a filler can be highly exculpatory information. It is a 

greater indicator that a witness is unreliable, and therefore more exculpatory, than when a 

witness fails to make any identification at all in a lineup; this is because when an eyewitness 

looks at a lineup and identifies a filler, the eyewitness is saying (in effect) that the filler looks 

more like the culprit than does the suspect. Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep in Rivera) at 262:12:24; Ex. 282 

(Steblay Rebuttal Report) at 19.

403. Neither G.O. 88-18 nor any other policies in effect in 1991 governed the conduct 

for filler identifications or photographic lineups. Ex. 30 (G.O. 88-18) (no instructions for filler 

identifications, no instructions for photographic lineups); Ex. 58 (Foster Dep.) at 201:1-20 (G.O. 

88-18 references lineups, but not photo arrays, gang books or photo books), 242:13-243:5 (G.O. 

88-18 was in place from 1988 to 1998), 243:6-25 (Special Order S06-02 went into effect after 

1998, and was the first policy providing policy guidance as to the conduct of photo arrays), 

303:11-15, 304:5-11, 307:5-11 (G.O. 88-18 was the only policy guidance about conducting or 

documenting live lineups from 1988 to 1998).

404. Regarding live lineups, G.O. 88-18 required a report to be written for live lineups 

documenting the date, time, location of the lineup, police conducting, persons viewing, persons 

present, persons participating in lineup, all persons identified, the person photographing lineup, 

all comments of counsel for the arrestee, and any additional information or unusual circumstance 

occurring during the lineup. Ex. 30 (G.O. 88-18) at 2.

405. G.O. 88-18 does not require blind administration of lineups. Ex. 30 (G.O. 88-18).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 107 of 147 PageID #:51973
107

406. G.O. 88-18 did not require documentation of the selection of a filler in a live 

lineup. Ex. 58 (Foster Dep) at 244:1-13 (identifications only considered positive or negative 

identifications of suspects), 309:7-10 (under G.O. 88-18, “if the person identified in the lineup 

was a filler, that [designation] would not be documented.”). Indeed, policies provided no 

guidance on what to report when a filler was selected. Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera), 264:11-

265:19.

407. The City’s Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses have variously testified that filler 

identifications were documented as negative identifications, Ex. 58 (Foster Dep.) at 244:9-13, 

and that filler identifications were not documented. Ex. 72 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera), at 261:24-

262:6, 264:11-265:19.

408. G.O. 88-18 contains no instruction regarding what was required before a 

supervisor approved a live lineup report. Ex. 30 (G.O. 88-18) at 1-3.

409. G.O. 88-18 contains no requirement to document the comments of what police 

conducting lineups said to witnesses or vice versa, and contains no requirement to document 

exculpatory or impeachment information arising from lineup procedures. Ex. 30 (G.O. 88-18) at 

1-3.

410. Lt. Foster also testified that there was no policy against showing a single photo 

during a stranger identification procedure and that there was no policy against showing a witness 

a single photo before the witness views a live lineup. Ex. 58 (Foster Dep.) at 206, 207:24-208:9 

(agreeing that, as a matter of policy, there was no prohibition on single photos being shown, and 

no direction or instruction given to detectives that single photo identifications were prohibited), 

267-68, 271-72. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 108 of 147 PageID #:51974
108

411. He also testified that CPD had no policies instructing detectives that once they 

obtained a positive identification from a photo array, they should not conduct an additional 

identification procedure with that witness, or that a subsequent live lineup identification is less 

reliable if the suspect is the only person who appears in both the photo array and live lineup. Ex. 

58 (Foster Dep.) at 293:21-25, 294.

412. Foster also testified that a photo array only required four fillers. Ex. 58 (Foster 

Dep.) at 197:1-22. The 1992 IACP model policy states that at least six photos, including the 

suspect (meaning five fillers), should be used in a photo array. Ex. 148 (1992 IACP Model 

Policy) at 1.

413. Foster testified that there was no applicable policy ensuring that a suspect did not 

have restraints or other indications that they were a person in custody during the course of a 

lineup. Ex. 58 (Foster Dep.) at 316:3-10.

414. In Rivera, the City was asked to identify a single file—from anywhere at any 

time—in which a lineup report reflected the identification of a filler. Ex. 155 (Doc. No. 64, 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Regarding Filler Lineups (describing the history of this issue and 

Rivera’s discovery requests].) The City responded that it would identify such a file if it found it, 

and it never updated that response. Ex. 156 (City Supp. Response to Plaintiff’s First 

Interrogatories, Request No. 14, July 2013.)

415. Foster agreed that a gang specialist could interview a witness and learn 

information pertinent to the homicide investigation outside the presence of any detective, and 

there was no requirement that the gang specialists had to document that interview. Ex. 58 (Foster 

Dep.) at 319:19-323:4. Even if the gang specialist did document pertinent information the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 109 of 147 PageID #:51975
109 

specialist acquired, there was no policy requiring that information to get to the Detective 

Division, or training on the issue. Ex. 58 (Foster Dep.) at 332:11-20. 

416. Special Order S06-02 went into effect after 1998, and was the first policy 

providing policy guidance as to the conduct of photo arrays; it did not apply from 1986-1998. 

Ex. 58 (Foster Dep.) at 243:6-25. Foster was unaware of any other policy applying to the conduct 

of photo book procedures. Ex. 58 (Foster Dep.) at 202:20-23. 

XXVII. Dr. Nancy Steblay’s Testimony 

417. Plaintiff disclosed Nancy Steblay as an expert in eyewitness identification, with 

specific expertise in eyewitness identification evidence collection procedures, memory, socialinfluence, decision-making, jury decision processes, and law enforcement eyewitness evidence 

procedures, in support of Plaintiff’s Monell claim against the City of Chicago. Ex. 279 (Pl.’s 

March 8, 2023 Rule 26(a)(2) Disclosure) at 1; Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 1-2; see also CV 

attached to her Report. In addition to disclosing an initial report, Dr. Steblay disclosed a rebuttal 

report responding to opinions of defense expert Dr. Wixted, which incorporates an earlier 

rebuttal to Dr. Wixted (July 3, 2023) in Bouto v. Guevara, et al., Sierra v. Guevara, et al., 

Rodriguez v. Guevara, et al., and Iglesias v. Guevara, et al. Ex. 282 (Steblay Rebuttal Report, 

Nov. 18, 2023). Finally, Dr. Steblay also supplemented her report with an explanation of three 

minor changes she made as she moved from her expert report in Iglesias to the instant case. Ex. 

288 (Dr. Steblay Supp.). 

418. Plaintiff retained Nancy K. Steblay, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Psychology at 

Augsburg University in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where she has been teaching and doing 

research on eyewitness topics since 1988. She is an expert on topics of social influence, memory, 

decision-making, and jury decision processes, with specific expertise in eyewitness identification 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 110 of 147 PageID #:51976
110

evidence collection procedures. She has authored over 45 publications, which involve a 

quantitative method called meta-analysis as well as the analysis of empirical data from the lab 

and from real witnesses to crime in the field. She has conducted workshops, information 

sessions, and lectures on eyewitness identification evidence to attorneys, prosecutors, police, and 

judges in the United States and Canada, and has worked with prosecutors, law enforcement, and 

other public officials and policy makers to help reform eyewitness identification procedures. She 

has served on the editorial boards of four major scientific journals that publish research on 

eyewitness identification. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 1; see also CV attached to her Report).

419. In Sierra, the City was required to produce 523 homicide files across a time 

period of five years (1991 – 1995) from Area Five. Ex. 159 (12/3/2019 Order Compelling 

Production, Sierra Dkt. 154); Ex. 160 (6/20/2020 Amended Joint Scheduling Order on Monell 

Discovery, Sierra Dkt. 195), Likewise, in Bouto v. Guevara, No. 19-c-2441, the City was 

required to produce Area Five homicide files from 1989 to 1993. Ex. 192 (8/3/20 Mem. Op. & 

Order on Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, Bouto Dkt. 153). Additionally, in Reyes and Rodriguez, the City 

was required to produce homicide files from 1995-1998. Ex. 64 (Dkts. 224, 384, Reyes v. 

Guevara, No. 18-c-1028 (1995-1998 Area Five homicide files ordered to be produced)); Ex. 193 

(Dkt. 186, Rodriguez, 5/3/2022 Order Compelling Production, Rodriguez). Collectively, these 

files constituted the compelled homicide files for this time period that were provided to Dr. 

Steblay in Iglesias and Johnson. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 3, 5; see Ex. 291 (Iglesias Dkt.. 

167) at 1, 4.

420. Plaintiff’s counsel compiled an Excel spreadsheet detailing the 2786 identification 

procedures (live lineups and photo arrays) reported in the compelled Monell homicide files for 

the time period from 1989 to 1998 and provided it to Dr. Steblay, along with a description of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 111 of 147 PageID #:51977
111

information coded. Dr. Steblay was provided access to all of the underlying files. Ex. 281 

(Steblay Report) at 5. The dataset included a range of identification practices (e.g., showups, 

photo lineups, live lineups) and variations in lineup size, number of suspects in the lineup, and 

circumstances of the identification (e.g., prior relationship between suspect and eyewitness as 

strangers or non-strangers). Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 4.

421. Dr. Steblay discussed with Plaintiff’s counsel how the coding for the files would 

be most efficient and effective for her analysis. Dr. Steblay was assured that the coding was 

reliable by taking the following steps: 

First, I ensured that the coding team was using objective and clear definitions for 

the coded variables. This was accomplished by referring to critical variables in 

earlier datasets (e.g., the Wells, et al., 2020 White Paper), and by documenting the 

definitions for the coded variables in the Excel spreadsheet. The primary variable 

of interest was the witness’s decision as per three possible categories: suspect 

identification, filler identification, or non-identification. . . . Second, the coding 

was done by at least two independent coders, who then compared their work to 

catch discrepancies. The means to resolve discrepancies was clear. The variables 

coded in this current set are for the most part objective with no interpretation 

necessary. Still, a review between coders can catch errors that stem from an 

overlooked item in the file or mis-keyed data. When a variable involves the 

possibility of subjectivity or confusion . . . the comparison between coders will 

help to maintain consistency in the coded results. Third, the data analyst (me) will 

spot-check a subset of files in order to ascertain whether there is clear agreement 

and understanding between the coders and the analyst about each variable in the 

set. In addition, the data analyst (me) will independently examine a randomlyselected subset of lineups (approximately 200) as a means to verify coding 

accuracy. Agreement surpassed 98%.

Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 5-6.

422. Dr. Steblay concluded that her interrater agreement surpassed 98%. Ex. 281 

(Steblay Report) at 5-6; Ex. 282 (Steblay Rebuttal Report) at 2. The strong interrater agreement 

gave Dr. Steblay confidence in the quality of the underlying data. Ex. 282 (Steblay Rebuttal) at 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 112 of 147 PageID #:51978
112

2-3; Ex. 162 (Steblay 2/9/23 Dep.) at 225:21-226:15, 93:22-94:19, 241:11-241:18. The data 

coding process does not call for subjective decision-making. Ex. 282 (Steblay Rebuttal Report) 

at 2-3; Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 5; Ex. 162 (Steblay 2/9/23 Dep.) at 88:5-90-91:23. 

423. The data summary first released to Dr. Steblay in Sierra underwent ongoing 

quality control measures and was not finalized until it was re-released to Dr. Steblay in Iglesias

(and used, in turn, in this case), in a finalized Iglesias/Johnson dataset covering all Area Five 

homicide files from 1989-1998, which incorporated Dr. Steblay’s reliability review and quality 

control measures. Ex. 162 (Steblay 2/10/23 Dep.) at 390:3-392:7, 407:12-407:24; Ex. 282 

(Steblay Rebuttal) at 4-5, 10-12, 21). The results of Dr. Steblay’s analysis were highly consistent 

both before and after completion of the quality control process, finding abnormally high suspect 

identification rates and abnormally low filler identification rates across all of the cases. Ex. 162 

(Steblay 2/10/23 Dep.) at 527:4-527:8, 573:3-574:15; Ex. 282 (Steblay Rebuttal Report) at 4-5, 

10-12, 21.

424. The Iglesias/Johnson Data Summary identified specific page references for each 

lineup procedure, and were shared with all parties in that litigation and with Defendant City of 

Chicago in both. Ex. 276 (Sierra Data Summary); Ex. 277 (Iglesias Data Summary); see also Ex. 

289. The City also had the underlying homicide files, which were the City’s documents produced 

in previous cases. Ex. 160, 159. Defendants’ expert responding to Dr. Steblay concedes that he 

does not challenge the data on which Dr. Steblay relies and he has not identified any error in that 

data. Ex. 163 (Wixted Report (Field Studies) at 1-2; Ex. 282 (Steblay Rebuttal) at 34. Wixted 

also did not opine that Dr. Steblay’s reliability check was unsound. Id. at 1-2.

425. Dr. Steblay observed that, between 1989 and 1998 in the Chicago dataset, 

witnesses participating in Chicago identification procedures picked the police officer’s suspect 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 113 of 147 PageID #:51979
113

75% of the time, made no identification 25% of the time, and selected a filler less than 1% of the 

time (in only nine instances in the entire dataset). Five percent of the lineup reports did not 

document the outcome of the lineup. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 3.

426. Additionally, of the 2786 lineups in the Chicago dataset, 23% of them included 

multiple suspects, and 20% concerned a repeat identification procedure with the same witness 

and suspect. Most lineups were smaller than six people in the procedure (58%). In 74% of 

identification procedures, the witness did not know the suspect, and in the remaining 26% of 

procedures the witnesses reported that the suspect was a familiar person at the time of the crime. 

Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 3.

427. In addition to making these observations, Steblay compared the results of the 

Chicago dataset with data reported in the 2020 White Paper, a peer-reviewed, consensus 

document signed by leading eyewitness scientists. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 2-3; Ex. 164 

(2020 White Paper). The 2020 White Paper aggregated the data from the eleven available peerreviewed field studies reporting lineup outcome data and found the compilation valuable to 

illuminate the behavior of real eyewitnesses in the field. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 2-3; Ex. 

164 (2020 White Paper) at 4-5. The field data reported in the 2020 White Paper reflects the 

outcomes of 6,734 lineups (both live and photo) conducted by police in actual cases across 

varied jurisdictions, including Northern California, San Diego, Houston, Tucson, Austin, 

Charlotte, and London, England. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 7; Ex. 282 (Steblay Rebuttal) at 6; 

see also Ex. 164 (2020 White Paper) at 4-5. The data from the field studies is aggregated and 

compiled in Table 1 of Dr. Steblay’s report. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 3. This data has been 

used independently in other published, peer-reviewed work. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 3; Ex. 

Ex. 282 (Rebuttal to Wixted) at 5; Ex. 164 (2020 White Paper) at 5. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 114 of 147 PageID #:51980
114

428. The 11 field studies comprising the Table I data “are from highly varied 

jurisdictions.” Ex. 164 (2020 White Paper) at 5; Ex. 282 (Steblay Rebuttal Report) at 6. Steblay 

reports that the data from these samples show regularities in the pattern of eyewitness decisions, 

despite the police practice variations in the jurisdictions. She reports that “[d]ifferences in 

practices among the 11 field studies are a strength, not a weakness, of this dataset because they 

support generalizability of the eyewitness decision patterns across many practices. That is, we 

can expect these patterns from eyewitnesses across varied police practices.” Ex. 282 (Steblay 

Rebuttal) at 6-7. She also explains that, because the studies show variability in eyewitness 

responses to lineups, an examination of the police practices can help explain the variability in 

that data. Ex. 282 (Steblay Rebuttal) at 7.

429. The eleven published field studies report the frequencies of lineup outcomes 

(suspect IDs, filler IDs, and non-identifications) for a total of 6,734 field lineups (including both 

photo and live lineups), each with a single suspect in the field lineup (no multiple-suspect 

lineups) making a first identification attempt. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 7. Dr. Steblay noted 

that three of the studies in Table 1 did not provide information about the relationship between 

witness and offender, and so her conservative assumption that all Table 1 data are stranger IDs 

was “favorable to the defense case,” as the presence of unreported familiar-perpetrator 

identifications would potentially increase suspect ID rates in those three studies. Likewise, no 

study reported repeated identification tasks with the same witness and suspect, so she reported 

that her conservative assumption that all lineups in the field data were first identifications was 

favorable to the defense case as the presence of unreported repeated identifications would 

potentially inflate suspect ID rates. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 7. Double-blind (meaning using 

pristine procedures) lineup procedures were not required. Ex. 282 (Steblay Rebuttal) at 7.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 115 of 147 PageID #:51981
115

430. The aggregated field studies revealed that witnesses selected the police suspect 

40.8% of the time, a known-innocent filler 23.7% of the time, and no one 35.5% of the time. Ex. 

281 (Steblay Report) at 3, 10; Ex. 164 (2020 White Paper) at 4-5. 

431. To compare the Chicago dataset to the eleven field studies, Dr. Steblay removed 

lineups with benign, evidence-based components of police practice that might otherwise inflate 

the suspect identification rate. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 4, 9 (noting the field data involving 

eyewitnesses making first identification attempts of stranger-perpetrators from a single-suspect 

lineup).

432. For instance, the Chicago lineups include non-stranger suspects, multiple-suspect 

lineups, and repeated identification procedures with the same witness viewing the same suspect, 

factors that could elevate suspect identification rates. Therefore, she screened out those three 

components of police practice prior to the comparison with the 11 field studies. Ex. 281 (Steblay 

Report) at 7-10. First, Dr. Steblay excluded familiar-perpetrator lineups, where the witness knew 

the perpetrator, as such lineups have inflated suspect identification rates. Ex. 281 (Steblay 

Report) at 8; Ex. 282 , Steblay Rebuttal, at 9. Dr. Steblay also excluded multiple-suspect 

lineups, and repeat lineups with the same witness and filler, as those were excluded in the field 

study data and can elevate suspect identification rates. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 8-9. Dr. 

Steblay thus limited her comparison analysis to Chicago lineups from unfamiliar-perpetrator, 

first identification, single-suspect lineups (the “Comparison Subset”). Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) 

at 3-4, 9.

433. After removing lineups associated with the above police practice components, the 

total number of lineups included in the comparison subset was 1076. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 

9. When Dr. Steblay compared the Chicago lineup outcomes in the Comparison subset with 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 116 of 147 PageID #:51982
116

outcomes in the aggregation of the 11 field studies, she found as follows: in the aggregated 11 

peer-reviewed studies, among the 6,734 attempts by eyewitnesses to identify the perpetrator from 

a lineup, only 40.8% identified the suspect, 24% identified a known-innocent filler, and 35% 

identified no one. In comparison, the Chicago lineups produced 70% suspect identifications, 

0.09% filler picks, and 30% non-identifications, a significantly different pattern of outcomes. Ex. 

281 (Steblay Report) at 4, 9-11. 

434. To test the statistical significance of the findings, Dr. Steblay used a Chi-Square 

test to calculate a probability (called a p-value) that the two samples would yield the difference 

being observed based on mere chance. The results were statistically significant; the Chi-Square 

test yielded a p-value of less than 0.00001. Dr. Steblay opined that the difference between the 

field studies and Chicago’s high suspect identification rate and low filler identification rate was 

therefore statistically significant, and that there was less than a 1 in 100,000 chance that the 

difference could be explained by chance. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 10.

435. At the time of her report in this case, Dr. Steblay had seven Chicago Police 

Department lineup outcome datasets: Velez, Rivera v. City of Chicago, Sierra, Rodriguez, Bouto, 

Iglesias, and a set from a FOIA study, in which Dr. Steblay personally managed the coding of the 

data. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 12-13. In all of these sets, the Chicago suspect identification 

rate (54-74%) is significantly higher than the aggregate field studies (41%). The suspect 

identification rate in those cases, shown together, are as follows:

(2004-2005) 54% (FOIA)

(1996-2001) 55% (Velez)

(1985-1997) 55% (Rivera)

(1991-1995) 74% (Sierra)

(1995-1998) 70% (Rodriguez)

(1989-1993) 73% (Bouto)

(1989-1998) 70% (Iglesias)

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 117 of 147 PageID #:51983
117

Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 12; see also Velez Report, Rivera Report, Sierra Report, Rodriguez 

Report, Bouto Report, Iglesias Report, and FOIA Study (attached to Steblay’s Report).

436. Dr. Steblay then analyzed all evidence-based explanations for why Chicago has a 

statistically significant lower filler identification rate and statistically significant higher suspect 

identification rate than other jurisdictions: (a) familiar perpetrator identifications (where the 

witness knows the suspect); (b) multiple suspect lineups, including those with too few fillers; (c) 

repeated identification procedures with the same suspect and witness, and instances in which 

police show the witness the suspect, in a photo or show-up, prior to the line-up; (d) steering and 

suggestion where police direct the witness toward the suspect, whether overtly or covertly; (e) a 

failure to report filler identifications; and (f) biased lineup constructions where the suspect stands 

out. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 12-20.

437. Dr. Steblay eliminated explanations (a), (b), and (c) from the Chicago database 

before it was compared to the field studies, and so these explanations could not explain the 

significantly higher suspect identification rate. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 19-20.

438. Explanation (e)—that the City does not report filler identifications—is denied by 

the City and would violate its policy—and so that explanation can be eliminated. Ex. 30 (General 

Order 88-18) at 2; Dkt. 330 at PageID 26375. That leaves fabrication of identifications using the 

improper techniques identified in explanations (d) and (f) —steering and suggestion to witnesses 

and presenting lineups where the suspect stands out–as the remaining explanations for Chicago’s 

statistically significant higher suspect identification rate. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 19-20.

439. Dr. Steblay confirms that CPD eyewitness filler picks cannot simply collapse into 

non-identifications in the CPD lineups. She describes that, even if all of the non-identifications 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 118 of 147 PageID #:51984
118 

were fillers, adjusting for that in the analysis “would not bring the CPD numbers into alignment 

with the 11 field studies—and there would be no non-IDs left.” Ex. 282 (Steblay Rebuttal) at 18. 

440. With that explanation removed, Dr. Steblay opined that the anomalous absence of 

filler picks in Chicago lineups reflects that “either filler picks are systematically not entered into 

the record or witnesses are being steered away from fillers (explicitly or implicitly), or both.” Ex. 

281 (Steblay Report) at 19. The City itself denies that filler picks were systematically 

unrecorded. E.g., Dkt. 330 at PageID 26375. The City’s own policy directly contradicts that filler 

picks were unrecorded, stating that “In no case will a lineup be conducted without a 

Supplemental Report being completed” Ex. 30 (General Order 88-18) at 2 (emphasis in original). 

This leaves systemic steering away from known-innocent fillers toward the police suspect as the 

remaining explanation for Chicago’s absence of filler identifications. 

441. Regarding (f), lineup quality such that the suspect stands out, Dr. Steblay opined 

that it was a suggestive mechanism known to facilitate false positive identifications, and 

referenced her evaluation in a separate Chicago study that found a high bias rate. In that study, 

Dr. Steblay also relied on five subsets of field data from eight U.S. cities (Steblay & Wells, 

2021), that she evaluated in order to study structural line-up bias in lineups. Dr. Steblay found 

that the highest bias rate (68%) occurred with a set of 59 Chicago live lineups conducted 

between 2004-2005. That is, in 68% of the Chicago lineups sampled, mock-witnesses—with no 

memory of a culprit—were able to identify the police suspect at a rate significantly higher than 

chance. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 19. 

442. Regarding (d), Dr. Steblay notes the occurrence of suggestion from administrators 

in Chicago lineups and that they present a danger of strong suggestiveness to influence a witness 

and lack of protections for an innocent suspect. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 16-18. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 119 of 147 PageID #:51985
119

443. The City’s lineup outcomes are so anomalous that mere innocuous conduct cannot 

explain them. As Dr. Steblay notes, “[a]mong the 11 field studies, there were some with better 

practices and some with more problematic practices (such as non blind lineup administration).” 

Ex. 282 (Steblay Rebuttal) at 12. Yet “the CPD suspect ID rate (70%) is significantly higher 

than any of the 11 field studies.” Id. (emphasis in original); see also id. at 6-7 (the idea that 

“eyewitnesses in CPD cases had the incredible memory strength to find a guilty suspect in the 

lineup (70% of lineup decisions) and never make an affirmative error (<1% filler picks) . . . . 

defies what we know about eyewitness decisions—from the lab or the field.”). 

444. Dr. Steblay performed an additional analysis of the association between Detective 

Guevara’s presence in lineups and the rate of suspect identifications, and did not find a 

significantly different suspect identification rate in investigations in which Detective Guevara 

was involved than in investigations when he was not involved. Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 20. 

445. Dr. Steblay’s rebuttal report concludes that there is no evidence that Chicago used 

evidence-based suspicion to place a suspect in a lineup. Ex. 282 (Steblay Rebuttal) at 16. It also 

refers to the 2020 White Paper, which states that there are no jurisdictions in the United States 

that have a policy to require independent evidence that a suspect committed the crime before 

placing him in the lineup, which includes Chicago. Id.

446. After Dr. Steblay wrote her report in Sierra, the City produced additional 

homicide files in Bouto, Rodriguez, and Iglesias:

a. Bouto: Dr. Steblay’s dataset in Bouto included 1335 eyewitness decision 

outcomes from Chicago police lineups in 457 homicide files, for the time period 

from 1989 to 1993. Ex. 165 (Steblay Report in Bouto) at 5. The comparison 

subset in Bouto included 540 Chicago lineups, after removing familiar-perpetrator 

lineups, multiple-suspect lineups, and repeated identification lineups from the 

dataset. Id. at 10. In this study, the suspect identification rate was 73%, compared 

to the field study average of 41%. Id. at 10-11. That revealed a statistically 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 120 of 147 PageID #:51986
120

significant difference. Id. at 10-11. In the Bouto data, of the 1335 eyewitness 

decision outcomes in the full dataset, only one was a filler pick; and among the 

comparison subset, there were zero. Id. at 18. This revealed another statistically 

significant difference from the field studies, which average 24% filler 

identifications. Id. at 18-19.

b. Rodriguez: Dr. Steblay’s dataset in Rodriguez included 1103 eyewitness decision 

outcomes from Chicago police lineups, for the time period from 1995 to 1998. Ex. 

166 (Steblay Report in Rodriguez) at 3, 5. The comparison subset in Rodriguez 

included 403 Chicago lineups, after removing familiar-perpetrator lineups, 

multiple-suspect lineups, and repeated identification lineups from the dataset. Id.

at 9-10. In this study, the suspect identification rate was 70%, compared to the 

field study average of 41%. Id. at 10-11. That revealed a statistically significant 

difference. Id. at 10-11. In the Rodriguez data, of the 1103 eyewitness decision 

outcomes in the full dataset, only four were filler picks; and among the 

comparison subset, there were zero. Id. at 18. This revealed another statistically 

significant difference from the field studies, which average 24% filler 

identifications. Id. at 18-19.

c. Iglesias: Dr. Steblay’s dataset in Iglesias included 2786 eyewitness decision 

outcomes from Chicago police lineups, for the time period from 1989 to 1998. Ex. 

158, Steblay Report in Iglesias, at 5. The comparison subset in Iglesias included 

1076 Chicago lineups, after removing familiar-perpetrator lineups, multiplesuspect lineups, and repeated identification lineups from the dataset. Id. at 9. In 

this study, the suspect identification rate was 70%, compared to the field study 

average of 41%. Id. at 10-11. That revealed a statistically significant difference. 

Id. at 10-11. In the Iglesias data, of the 2786 eyewitness decision outcomes in the 

full dataset, only nine were filler picks; and among the comparison subset, there 

was only one filler pick. Id. at 17. This revealed another statistically significant 

difference from the field studies, which average 24% filler identifications. Id. at 

18.

447. These rates were consistent across all cases. Indeed, after these productions, Dr. 

Steblay had seven data sets, all secured from legal cases: Velez (n = 523 for the comparison 

subset); Rivera v. City of Chicago (2016, n = 666); Sierra (n = 591); Bouto (n = 540), Rodriguez 

(n = 403), Iglesias (n = 1076) and a set from a FOIA lawsuit (discussed in Steblay, 2011, n = 

228). Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 9, 12; Ex. 288 (Steblay Supp.) at 1-2; Ex. 166 (Steblay Report 

in Rodriguez) at 4. In all sets, Dr. Steblay concluded that the Chicago suspect identification rate 

(54-74%) is statistically significantly higher than the aggregate field studies (41%).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 121 of 147 PageID #:51987
121 

(2004-2005) 54% (FOIA) 

(1996-2001) 55% (Velez) 

(1985-1997) 55% (Rivera) 

(1991-1995) 74% (Sierra) 

(1995-1998) 70% (Rodriguez) 

(1989-1993) 73% (Bouto) 

(1989-1998) 70% (Iglesias) 

Ex. 281 (Steblay Report) at 12. 

448. Dr. Steblay supplemented her report to indicate three minor changes that she 

made as she moved from the Iglesias report to the Johnson report. She explained that there were 

three instances in which she had not carried a preferred number from the original report to the 

summary sentence included on page 12 of the Johnson Report, and explained in detail those 

changes. Ex. 288 (Steblay Supplement) at 1-2. 

XXVIII. The City Had a Pattern of Fabricating Evidence Against Suspects and Was On Notice 

of Such Allegations 

449. In 1987, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the conviction of Melvin Jones for 

murder based on evidence that officers had fabricated an eyewitness identification against him.

See People v. Jones, 157 Ill. App. 3d 1006, 1025-27 (1987); see also, e.g., Ex. 180 (Chicago Sun 

Times, Burge tortured me, too, ex-suspect says, 1992 WLNR 5316085); Ex. 181 (Melvin Jones, 

Nat’l Registry of Exonerations, 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4176).

450. In 1988, the Seventh Circuit upheld a jury verdict in favor of George Jones, who 

was convicted after CPD detectives suppressed the victim’s initial failure to identify him as the 

suspect and conducted a repeat photo identification procedure which was disclosed without any 

indication that it had been performed before; CPD subsequently disciplined the police 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 122 of 147 PageID #:51988
122 

whistleblower who brought the misconduct to light, but declined to discipline any of the 

detectives involved in the investigation. Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1988). 

451. In 1989, James Newsome, who had been wrongly convicted of murder, obtained a 

court order requiring the CPD to run unidentified fingerprints from the murder scene through its 

fingerprint identification system, and CPD officers hid the results for five years until in 1994 

they revealed that the fingerprints matched another man convicted of murder, leading to 

Newsome’s conviction being overturned in 1994 and him subsequently being granted a pardon 

based on innocence in 1995. See Newsome v. James, No. 96 C 7680, 2000 WL 528475, at *2, 16 

(N.D. Ill. Apr. 26, 2000); see also Ex. 177 (Newsome v. James, No. 96 C 7680, Dkt. 150, N.D. 

Ill. May 16, 2000) at 3-9; See Ex. 178 (Chicago Tribune, Lineup suit nets $15 million, 2001 

WLNR 10747375); Ex. 179 (James Newsome, Nat’l Registry of Exonerations, 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3504). 

452. In 1993 and 1994, Chicago police officers obtained several purported 

identifications of Vincent Goldstein as the robber of four grocery stores and arrested him; those 

identifications were proven false after Mr. Goldstein’s alibi was established by his employer and 

another man confessed. Ex. 182 (Chicago Tribune, Wrong Guy Looked Right in Lineups, 1994 

WLNR 4312248). 

453. Robert Brown was released after previously being convicted of murder, following 

his identification in a CPD lineup. Ex. 183 (Robert Brown, Nat'l Registry of Exonerations, 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3063). In 1997, 

the convictions of Donald Reynolds and Billy Wardell were vacated based on DNA evidence. 

See Ex. 184 (Donald Reynolds, Nat’l Registry of Exonerations, 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3574).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 123 of 147 PageID #:51989
123

454. Evidence of Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen’s misconduct is found in sworn 

testimony by Officer Ron Malczyk, as part of the investigation of the Ruben Gonzalez murder. 

Malczyk testified that Guevara and Halvorsen fabricated evidence about the murder, including a 

fabricated conversation with Malczyk himself that falsely included a fabricated identification of 

the gang that committed the shooting and the vehicle that was used. Ex. 280 (Deposition of 

Officer Ron Malczyk, May 11, 2022, Sierra v Guevara, 18-cv-3029 (N.D. Ill.) at 126-129, 131-

135).

455. CPD sergeants, lieutenants, and commanders of detectives widely understood that 

false identifications could result if photo identification procedures weren’t conducted properly, 

and understood that photo identification procedures could be abused if they were not done 

correctly. Ex. 58 (Foster Dep.) at 284.

456. From 1986-1998, the Chicago Police Department conducted no audits into the 

City’s witness identification procedures or practices or patterns of misconduct involving such 

procedures. Ex. 185 (30(b)(6) Deposition of Commander Denham) at 32. 

Widespread Lack of Training, Supervision, or Monitoring on Documentation Procedures and 

Identification Procedures

Documentation

457. 30(b)(6) representative Hickey testified that he was not aware of any punishment 

when an individual did not comply with S.O. 83-1. Ex. 74 (Hickey Fields Dep.) at 10:12-22. 

458. Hickey testified that he had no knowledge whether, after the implementation of 

S.O. 83-1, there was anything done to survey or audit the implementation of the policy. Ex. 74 

(Hickey Fields Dep.) at 43:1-4.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 124 of 147 PageID #:51990
124

459. Hickey himself admitted that he learned that unit detectives were reverting back 

to keeping their own files to take out on investigations after Special Order 83-1. Ex. 76 (Hickey 

Kluppelberg Dep,) at 321, 327

460. The only training that happened after the 1983 changes was a “three-hour 

training” on note taking. Ex. 73 (Winstrom Dep.) at 146:25-147:4. He confirmed that the training 

did not cover supplementary reports, did not provide guidance to detectives about what they 

should consider relevant or not relevant information, and did not include instruction to detectives 

that they should document everything they learned during the investigation. Ex. 73 (Winstrom 

Dep.) at 148:14-149.

461. Tiderington concluded that the one three-hour training session on the first 

iteration of the policy change, where CPD senior leaders already knew detectives were opposed 

to the change, was wholly insufficient to overcome a decades-long practice. Ex. 23 (Tiderington 

Report) at 46. 

462. 30(b)(6) representative Winstrom confirmed that detectives who received that 

training would not have received that kind of in-service training on the policies again. Ex. 73, 

Winstrom Dep., at 151:11-16. In fact, he testified that he was not aware of any in-service training 

like that occurring after S.O. 86-3 was issued. Ex. 73, Winstrom Dep., at 151:20-24. The only 

further training that did occur for the revised Special Orders, for those detectives who received 

the 3-hour training, was receiving the revised Order and having any changes in the order read 

aloud for five or seven straight days. Id. at 152:1-24. Yet S.O 86-3 was substantively identical 

to its previous iterations except for the addition of an auditing provision. Compare Ex. 79 

(Special Order 83-2) with; Ex. 80 (Special Order 86-3); Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 100:9-

101:12, 227, 245-47, 249.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 125 of 147 PageID #:51991
125

463. Winstrom testified that he had no personal knowledge of any inspection, was not 

aware of any inspection that occurred, and was not aware of any documentation reflecting the 

performance of any audits or inspections occurring from 1986 to 1988 as required by section six 

of S.O. 86-3. Ex. 73 (Winstrom Dep.) at 118:23-120:24. 

464. Likewise, Winstrom testified that he was not aware of any documents reflecting 

any training provided to commanders or other supervisors to conduct audits of investigative files. 

Ex. 73 (Winstrom Dep.) at 121:12-16.

465. Hickey described the City’s process of disclosing police records to prosecutors 

and criminal defendants as an “art form” of informal, on-the-job training, and could not think of 

any directives written to ensure proper disclosure of necessary information, including 

exculpatory information, in response to a subpoena request. Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 

160:7-22, 161:10-163:24. Hickey confirmed there was no training on this after the 1983, threehour training on S.O. 83-1. Ex. 71 (Hickey Dep. in Rivera) at 185-87.

466. Winstrom admitted that subpoena clerks would simply ready the subpoena and 

send a request for documents to whichever units they thought might have documents, and that 

they were not provided with any policies, directives, checklists, guidelines or training materials 

to guide their decision about where to obtain documents, nor were they given any forms or lists 

that identified all the repositories in which documents related to a homicide investigation might 

be found. Ex. 73 (Winstrom Dep.) at 189, 192-94; see also Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 31 

(concluding that there were no checklists, procedures, or any other guidelines or guidance to 

assist subpoena responders in making sure they were requesting material from all the right 

repositories, or to check on the back end whether they got everything they should, or even formal 

training to set the proper expectations and practice).

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 126 of 147 PageID #:51992
126

467. 30(b)(6) representative Winstrom testified that he was not aware of any auditing 

done to ensure that the investigative file was getting to the criminal justice system. Ex. 73 

(Winstrom Dep. in Reyes) at 208:20-209:2. He testified that he was not aware of an inspection 

where a court inspection group ever randomly checked a file to ensure that a subpoena was 

receiving all of the documents of the investigative file. Id. at 209:3-9. He testified that he was not 

aware of CPD conducting any audit or inspection to ensure that all documents related to 

homicide investigations were being produced in response to subpoenas for all homicide files, or 

that all documents that exist in different places within CPD were being gathered and produced in 

criminal investigations. Id. at 209:10-22.

468. CPD did nothing to monitor and assess whether the policy was being followed, or 

to reprimand those detectives and supervisors who refused to comply. Hickey and Winstrom 

admit they are not aware of, and could not identify, any sampling or auditing that occurred after 

the Special Orders were put in place. Ex. 69 (Tiderington Report in Iglesias) at 55.

469. Hickey and Winstrom admit that there was no discipline of detectives who did not 

comply with the Special Orders. Ex. 76, Hickey Kluppelberg Deposition 213; Ex. 71 (Hickey 

Dep. in Rivera) at 187:6-10; Ex. 73 (Winstrom Dep.) at 209-210. Further, Foster stated that no 

Special Orders in the Detective Division would apply to gang crime specialists. Ex. 58 (Foster 

Dep.) at 99:7-25.

470. Tiderington stated that he was unaware “of the City having produced a single 

document demonstrating that any audit or inspection ever occurred,” and he reviewed the City’s 

30(b)(6) testimony confirming that there was no discipline of detectives that did not comply with 

the Special Orders. Ex. 23 (Tiderington Report) at 46.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 127 of 147 PageID #:51993
127

Identification Procedures

471. Foster stated that he was not aware of any training prior to 1996 for gang crime 

specialists related to their assistance in homicide investigations or with regard to their use of 

street sources. Ex. 58 (Foster Dep. in Iglesias) at 111:17-112:5. Likewise, he was unaware of any 

training for detectives in the period from 1986 to 1998 with regard to their use of street sources 

or registered confidential informants in homicide investigations. Ex. 58 (Foster Dep. in Iglesias) 

at 112:11-19. There was also no training as to photo show-ups whatsoever. Ex. 58 (Foster Dep. 

in Iglesias) at 229:19-24. 

472. The City of Chicago did not produce any training policies or manuals regarding 

eyewitness identifications for the time period leading up to Johnson’s wrongful conviction. 

Instead, the only training materials provided are from 1996. Ex. 58 (Foster Dep. in Iglesias) at 

158:2-11, 279:18-280:7. The training was not provided to gang crime specialists nor does its 

content apply to gang book procedures. Ex. 58 (Foster Dep. in Iglesias) at 161:1-4, 163:21-164:1

473. When asked whether detectives were trained that they should document 

eyewitness descriptions of suspects, or whether they could choose not to do that, Winstrom 

testified “there[] [were] times that you would not document that.” Ex. 73 (Winstrom Dep.) at 

80:12-20. 

474. 30(b)(6) representative Winstrom testified that detectives were “not necessarily” 

trained that any field interviews of a potential suspect should be documented. Ex. 73 (Winstrom 

Dep.) at 84:21-85:5.

475. Gang specialists were not provided any training relative to their participation in 

homicide investigations in general. Ex. 58 (Foster Dep.) at 166:2-14, 168:1-8, 169:18-25. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 128 of 147 PageID #:51994
128

476. There was no policy or training for detectives or gang crime specialists about 

documenting gang book identifications, although both detectives and gang specialists used gang 

books during homicide investigations. Ex. 58 (Foster Dep.) at 166:2-14, 168:1-8, 169:18-25; 

192-93, 315-16, 194:5-11. Foster also testified that, from 1986-1998, detectives were not trained 

that there were any prohibitions on what they could say to a witness before a lineup procedure or 

a gang book showing. Ex. 58 (Foster Dep.) at 166:2-14, 168:1-8, 169:18-25; 192-93, 315-16. 

Yet the 1992 IACP Model Policy states that detectives should scrupulously avoid saying 

anything suggestive to the witness about who the suspect is. Ex. 148 (1992 IACP Model Policy) 

at 1. 

477. In fact, the only training provided to detectives covered documenting positive 

identifications in live lineup procedures. Ex. 58 (Foster Dep.) at 203:4-6, 164:11-25.

478. The City’s 30(b)(6) representative Commander Denham agreed that, in the time 

frame of 1986 to 1998, the IAD had the authority to conduct audits relating to misconduct during 

eyewitness investigation procedures, but did not actually conduct any audits during that time 

frame. Ex. 185 (Denham Dep. in Sierra) at 30:8-31:14, 32:4-8. 

479. Likewise, Commander Denham agreed that OPS had the authority to conduct 

audits into misconduct relating to eyewitness identifications from 1986 to 1998 but he is not 

aware that OPS actually conducted any audits during this time frame. Ex. 185 (Denham Dep. in 

Sierra) at 32:9-19.

480. Commander Denham agreed that the Mayor, Superintendent, Chief of Internal 

Affairs, and the Chief or administrator of OPS would have the authority to request an audit to 

find out whether there was a problem of misconduct among detectives or gang crime specialists 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 129 of 147 PageID #:51995
129

in a particular area relating to eyewitness investigations, which would only be carried out by 

IAD, OPS, or the IG’s office. Ex. 185 (Denham Dep. in Sierra) at 38:12-39:15. 

481. Commander Denham conceded that he was not aware of any audits conducted 

between 1986 and 1998 by the CPD to evaluate whether G.O. 88-18 was being followed—

including as to the requirement to complete a supplementary report when a lineup is conducted—

or to determine whether G.O. 88-18 needed any policy changes. Ex. 185 (Denham Dep. in 

Sierra) at 42:5-15, 50:51:1-10.

482. Commander Denham agreed that the City of Chicago did not carry out any 

investigations or audits between 1986 to 1998 that evaluated whether detectives or gang 

specialists were properly documenting eyewitness identification procedures, whether detectives 

were unfairly influencing eyewitness identification procedures through improper suggestion, or 

whether gang crime specialists were engaging in any misconduct relating to eyewitness 

identification procedures. Ex. 185 (Denham Dep. in Sierra) at 43:14-44:5, 44:6-19. 

483. Other than CR investigations between 1986 and 1998, Denham confirmed that the 

City of Chicago did not conduct any investigations or audits as to live-lineups, photo arrays, or 

clothing lineups, or to evaluate the identification practices amongst a particular group of CPD 

detectives, or to identify any problems with the conduct of any eyewitness procedures. Ex. 185 

(Denham Dep. in Sierra) at 45:8-23, 47:2-7, 50:21-51:6. 

484. Denham was also unaware of any audits or investigations by the City after 

receiving information that a witness’s lineup identification had been a false positive to determine 

whether it was caused by an officer’s misconduct. Ex. 185 (Denham Dep. in Sierra) at 47:8-48:4. 

485. Denham was unaware of any city investigations or audits that were prompted by 

individual CR investigations from 1986 to 1998, or that evaluated whether there were problems 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 130 of 147 PageID #:51996
130

with supervision of eyewitness procedures, or that the city conducted any criminal investigations 

of CPD officers for misconduct in connection with eyewitness identifications in this timeframe. 

Ex. 185 (Denham Dep. in Sierra) at 48:19-49:7, 49:16-20. 

486. Denham also was unaware of any audits or investigations by the City prompted 

by a court throwing out a conviction, or prompted by evidence in which a court found a 

problematic or concerning eyewitness identification – including for the cases of Melvin Jones, 

Robert Brown, Vincent Goldstein, James Newsome, Donald Reynolds, and Billy Wardell. Ex. 

185 (Denham Dep. in Sierra) at 51:17-53:18.

487. The City’s 30(b)(6) representative Commander Moore stated that the City did not 

attempt to track the number of allegations of misconduct relating to lineups, nor did IAD take 

any corrective steps to monitor motions to suppress witness identifications in criminal court. Ex. 

168 (Moore Dep. in Velez) at 82:4-9, 84:12-84:15. IAD did not receive notice when a motion to 

suppress a witness identification was granted, nor did it take any affirmative steps to find out 

when such motions were granted and CPD officers were found to have engaged in improper 

conduct in an identification procedure. Ex. 168 (Moore Dep. in Velez) at 85:2-86:4.

488. Plaintiff’s retained expert Jennifer Dysart opined on the similarities between the 

cases she has reviewed involving Detective Guevara, which include Rivera, Montanez v. 

Guevara, et al., Case No. 17-cv-4560, Serrano v. Guevara, et al., Case No. 17-cv-2869, Sierra, 

Bouto, and Iglesias. She stated that “It seems that a common theme in the Guevara cases I have 

reviewed is [for Guevara to] manipulate witnesses who had poor opportunities to view the 

perpetrator. Most of the cases had several estimator variables factors: a limited opportunity to see 

the perpetrator, the presence of stress and arousal, the presence of a weapon, and issues with 

perpetrator descriptions. In summary, the witnesses in these cases were likely vulnerable to 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 131 of 147 PageID #:51997
131

suggestion and influence due to the presence of multiple estimator variables that can lead to a 

weak memory for a perpetrator.” Ex. 128 (Dysart Report) at 25.

Notice of Guevara’s Bad Acts

489. Since at least 1982, the City had notice of the pattern of illegal misconduct of 

Detective Guevara, who has been involved in physical assaults and coercive manipulation of 

witnesses, suspects, victims, and defendants, primarily in the process of obtaining false 

statements, across multiple decades. For instance: 

a. In 1982, Guevara physically assaulted Annie Turner by hitting her across the face 

with a metal bracelet and called her a “n***** bitch;” although Ms. Turner 

complained to OPS, no discipline was imposed on Guevara. See Ex. 194, 

(Testimony, Medical Records, and OPS Complaint of Annie Turner); 

b. In 1982, Detective Guevara broke through Almarie Lloyd’s locked front door and 

conducted a warrantless search of her home; again, Ms. Lloyd complained to 

OPS, but no discipline was imposed. See Ex. 195 (OPS Complaint of Almarie 

Lloyd, Testimony of Almarie & Job Lloyd, Hunt v. Jaglowski, 85 C 1976); 

c. In 1983, Guevara and others beat Leshurn Hunt until he confessed to murder; that 

statement was suppressed and Mr. Hunt sued Guevara and complained to OPS 

about Guevara’s misconduct. See Ex. 196 (Affidavit of Leshurn Hunt); Ex. 197 

(Trial Transcript of Hunt v. Jaglowski, 85 C 1976) at AR-L 544934, 544946, 

545016-19; Ex. 198 (Letter from Leshurn Hunt to Eugene Hudson, Dated 

2/28/86); 

d. In 1984, Guevara physically assaulted Graciela Flores. See Ex. 197 (Testimony of 

Graciela Flores & Anna Flores, from Trial Transcript of Hunt v. Jaglowski, 85 C 

1976) at AR-L 544684-544714; 

e. In 1985, Detective Guevara used threats and violence to attempt to coerce a false 

identification from Reynaldo Munoz, See Ex. 199 (Affidavit of Reynaldo 

Munoz); 

f. In 1986, Guevara beat Rafael Garcia by grabbing him by the shirt and throwing 

him against a bar; handcuffing him and striking him in the face several times; 

throwing him to the floor and kicking him; and throwing him against the wall and 

hitting him in the head. After the incident was reported, Guevara then denied 

striking Garia and throwing him onto the floor, into the wall, and handcuffing him 

to the wall. The City’s disciplinary body found that Guevara had indeed lied 

about the incident and had given false information to investigators. For that 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 132 of 147 PageID #:51998
132

behavior, Guevara was only suspended for two days. See Ex. 200 (OPS 

Complaint of Rafael Garcia, CR #152902); 

g. In 1986, Guevara coerced a confession from Daniel Pena by beating him about 

the face and ribs with his hands and about the groin and thighs with flashlights, 

see Ex. 201 (Testimony of Daniel Pena, Armador Rivera, and Jamie Velez in 

People v. Pena, 86 CR 1458); 

h. In 1986, Guevara called Melvin Warren a “n***** dog” and beat him, and the 

City’s OPS initially sustained Warren’s allegations, recommending a five-day 

suspension, but OPS later downgraded the discipline to a reprimand for calling a 

citizen “n*****;” See Ex. 202 (OPS Complaint and Testimony of Melvin Warren, 

Hunt v. Jaglowski, 85 C 1976);

i. In 1989, Guevara coerced a false confession from Victor Vera, see Ex. 203 

(Affidavit of Victor Vera); 

j. In 1989, Guevara coerced Virgilio Muniz to falsely implicate Manuel Rivera, see 

Ex. 204 (Affidavit of Virgilio Muniz).

k. In 1989, Guevara threatened Virgilio Calderon Muniz (unrelated to the Virgilio 

Muniz) into falsely identifying Victor Vera, see Ex. 205 (Affidavit of Virgilio 

Calderon Muniz); 

l. In 1991, Guevara coerced Wilfredo Rosario into falsely identifying Xavier Arcos, 

see Ex. 206 (Testimony of Wilfredo Rosario & Appellate Court Opinion, People 

v. Arcos, 91 CR 743)1

; 

m. In approximately 1990, former Chicago police detective Bill Dorsch was present 

when Detective Guevara brought two juveniles to the police station who 

purported to have witnessed a shooting and recorded the license plate of the 

shooter’s car. While the first juvenile was viewing a photo array, and before he 

identified any of the photographs, Guevara pointed to the suspect’s photo and told 

the juvenile “that’s him.” The juvenile then agreed with Guevara, saying that was 

the person who committed the shooting. See Ex. 207 (Testimony of William 

Dorsch, People v. Serrano & Montanez, 93 CR 1873) at JR-L 076819, JR-L 

076824-48. Mr. Dorsch then directed Guevara to leave the room and had the 

other juvenile view the same photo array—that juvenile was unable to make any 

identification. Id. Subsequently, Dorsch spoke to the two juveniles without 

Guevara present. The juveniles admitted that they had been paid to falsely claim 

that the suspect was the shooter. Id. Dorsch’s supervisors in the CPD knew about 

Guevara’s misconduct in that case, but instead of disciplining Guevara, instead 

Guevara was promoted. Id. at JR-L 076888-90, JR-L 076906-09, JR-L 076928-

32; see also Ex. 208 (Dysart Report in Johnson) at 25 (“It seems that a common 

theme in the Guevara cases I have reviewed [including Sierra] is [for him to] 

1 Mr. Arcos was convicted based on the false evidence, but the appellate court overturned his conviction based on a 

lack of evidence. See People v. Arcos, 228 Ill App. 3d 870, 876 (1st Dist. 1996). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 133 of 147 PageID #:51999
133

manipulate witnesses who had poor opportunities to view the perpetrator”). 

Guevara has taken the Fifth in regard to all allegations regarding Bill Dorsch’s 

accusations. ex. 209 (Guevara Testimony from Jacques v. Rivera et al. 12-cv004428, at 402-15). 

n. In 1991, Guevara coerced David Rivera falsely confessing to murder, see Ex. 210 

(Affidavit of David Rivera); 

o. In 1991, Detective Guevara coerced a false confession from Daniel Rodriguez, 

See Ex. 211 (Affidavit of Daniel Rodriguez); 

p. In 1991, Guevara physically coerced sixteen year-old David Velazquez into 

falsely identifying Daniel Rodriguez, see Ex. 212 (Testimony of David Velazquez 

in People v. Velazquez, 91 CR 13938); 

q. In 1992, Guevara obtained an involuntary confession from 15 year-old Jacqueline 

Montanez; see People v. Montanez, 273 Ill. App. 3d 844, 855 (1st Dist. 1995); 

r. In 1993, Guevara tried to coerce 15 year-old Eleizar Cruzado into implicating 

himself in a murder; see Ex. 213 (Suppression Hearing Testimony of Eleizar 

Cruzado, People v. Cruzado, 93 CR 24896); 

s. In 1993, Guevara used physical force and threats to coerce a false confession from 

Adolfo Frias-Munoz; See Ex. 214 (Affidavit of Adolfo Frias Munoz); 

t. In 1994, Guevara used violence to coerce a confession from Adrian Duta, see Ex. 

215 (Affidavit of Adrian Duta); 

u. In 1995, Guevara and others coerced an involuntary confession from Santos 

Flores after handcuffing him to the wall of a locked interview room and refusing 

his requests for an attorney, see People v. Flores, 315 Ill. App. 3d 387, 393-94 

(1st Dist. 2000), and coerced Gloria Ortiz Bordoy into falsely implicating Santos 

Flores; Ex. 216 (Deposition of Gloria Ortiz Bordoy, Johnson v. Guevara, 05 C 

1042); 

v. In 1995, Defendant Guevara arrested Edwin Davila and, in an attempt to coerce a 

confession, chained Davila to the wall of an interrogation room and told him that 

he was going to frame him for murder. After Davila maintained that he was 

uninvolved, Guevara forced Davila to participate in a lineup in which two 

witnesses identified Davila as the perpetrator, despite that each of those witnesses 

previously told the police that they had not been able to see the shooter. See Ex. 

217 (Affidavit of Edwin Davila). 

w. In 1995, Guevara coerced Evelyn Diaz into falsely identifying Luis Serrano, see

Ex. 218 (Deposition of Evelyn Diaz, Johnson v. Guevara, 05 C 1042); 

x. In 1995, Guevara told Luis Figueroa to falsely identify Angel Diaz, see Ex. 219 

(Testimony of Luis Figueroa, People v. Diaz, 95 CR 610901 & Supplemental 

Police Report); 

y. In 1995, Guevara coerced Rodolfo Zaragoza into falsely identifying Ricardo 

Rodriguez, see Ex. 220 (Affidavit of Rodolfo Zaragoza); 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 134 of 147 PageID #:52000
134

z. In 1996, Guevara coerced Maria Rivera into falsely identifying Angel Gaya and 

all charges were later dropped in the case, see Ex. 221 (Suppression Hearing 

Testimony of Maria Rivera, People v. Solache and Reyes, 98 CR 12440); 

aa. In 1997, Guevara coerced Robert Ruiz into falsely identifying Freddy and 

Concepcion Santiago as the murderers of Guevara’s nephew; Ex. 222 (Testimony 

of Robert Ruiz, People v. Santiago & Santiago, 97 CR 20973); 

bb. In 1997, Guevara falsely reported that witness Ruth Antonetty implicated Ariel 

Gomez in a murder, when she had not; Ex. 223 (Post-Conviction Petition in 

People v. Gomez, 97 CR 18961); 

cc. In 1997, Guevara coerced a false confession from Voytek Dembski by beating 

him while chained to a wall in a locked interrogation room. Ex. 224 (Affidavit of 

Jed Stone); 

dd. In 1998, Guevara used violence against Rosauro Mejia in an attempt to coerce a 

confession from him. Ex. 225 (Suppression Hearing Testimony of Rosauro Mejia, 

People v. Solache & Reyes, 98 CR 12440); 

ee. In 1998, Guevara used violence against Adriana Mejia during her interrogation; 

Ex. 226 (Suppression Hearing Testimony of Adriana Mejia, People v. Solache & 

Reyes, 98 CR 12440); 

ff. In November 2001, Guevara’s girlfriend, Judith Martinez, attended a trial in 

which Guevara was testifying and conferred with Guevara after observing the trial 

testimony of trial witnesses, even though the Court had ordered for all witnesses 

to be excluded from the courtroom to prevent witness collusion. Ex. 227 (Lassar 

Report regarding Robert Bouto Dated 3/3/15).

490. Detective Guevara has refused to testify about his interactions with: Anna Flores, 

Ex. 228 (Testimony of Reynaldo Guevara in People v. Serrano & Montanez, 93 CR 18173) at 

JR-L 077143, JR-L 077171-72; Ex. 121 (Testimony of Reynaldo Guevara in People v. Arturo 

Reyes & Gabriel Solache, 98 CR 12440) at JR-L 049883-85; Graciela Flores, Ex. 228 at JR-L 

077143, JR-L 077171-72, Ex. 121 at JR-L 049883-84; David Velazquez, Ex. 228 at JR-L 

077143, JR-L 077168-71; Ex. 121 at JR-L 049873-75; Efrain Sanchez, Ex. 228 at JR-L 077144, 

JR-L 077172-73; Julio Sanchez, Ex. 228 at JR-L 077144, JR-L 077173-74; Adolfo Frias 

Munoz, Ex. 228 at JR-L 077144-45, JR-L 077174-75; Ex. 121 at JR-L 049869-70; Jose 

Melendez, Ex. 228 at JR-L 077145, JR-L 077177-79; Ex. 121 at JR-L 049886, JR-L 049888, 

Gabriel Solache, Ex. 228 at JR-L 077145-46; Ex. 121 at JR-L 049861-64, Arturo Reyes, Ex. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 135 of 147 PageID #:52001
135

228 at JR-L 077146; Ex. 121 at JR-L 049858-61, JR-L 049893-94; Virgilio Muniz, Ex. 228 at 

JR-L 077147, JR-L 077180; Luis Figueroa, Ex. 228 at JR-L 077176; Ex. 121 at JR-L 049890-

92; Angel Diaz, Ex. 228 at JR-L 077176-77; Ex. 121 at JR-L 049891-92, JR-L 049894; 

Wilfredo Rosario, Ex. 228 at JR-L 077181-82; Xavier Arcos, Ex. 228 at JR-L 077182; Ex. 121 

at JR-L 049880-81; Gloria Ortiz Bordoy, Ex. 228 at JR-L 077182-83; Robert Ruiz, Ex. 228 at 

JR-L 077184, Ex. 121 at JR-L 049877-79; Leshurn Hunt, Ex. 121 at JR-L 049867-68; Adrian 

Duta, Ex. 121 at JR-L 049868-69; Voytek Dembski, Ex. 121 at JR-L 049871-72; Daniel Pena, 

Ex. 121 at JR-L 049875-77; Annie Turner, Ex. 121 at JR-L 049881-82; Thomas Sierra, Ex. 

121 at JR-L 049887-88; Juan Johnson, Jacques Rivera, Orlando Lopez, Jose Montanez, 

Armando Serrano, Timothy Rankins, Jorge Pacheco, Robert Almodovar, William Negron, 

Jose Maysonet, Angel Rodriguez, Santos Flores, Henry Johnson, Ariel Gomez, Ricardo 

Rodriguez, Robert Bouto, Carl Richmond, Rey Lozada, Rosendo Ochoa, Hugo Rodriguez, 

Jacqueline Grande, Sam Perez, Salvador Ortiz, David Colon, Luis Serrano, Evelyn Diaz, 

Freddy and Concepcion Santiago, Ricardo Rodriguez, Aurelio Martinez, Demetrius 

Johnson, Gamalier Rivera, Antonio Diaz, Richardini Lopez, Maria Diaz, Antonio 

McDowell, Marilyn Mulero, David Gecht, Richard Kwil, Colleen Miller, Ruben 

Hernandez, Eruby Abrego, Ramon Torrez, Isidro Quinonez, Julio Lugo, Bernard Turner, 

Melvin Warren, Rafael Garcia, Jossie Martinez, Semara Johnson, Juan and Rosendo 

Hernandez, Edgar Perez, Ex. 293 (Guevera Dep. in Sierra) at 13-18, 29-65, 66-121, 139-229.; 

Francisco Vicente, Ex. 228 at JR-L 077138-43, JR-L 077148-62; and Geraldo Iglesias, Ex. 228 

at JR-L 077141, JR-L 077185-86; see also Ex. 290 (Def. Guevara’s Answers to Pl.’s First Set of 

Interr.) at 1-8, as well as other individuals listed infra at ¶492.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 136 of 147 PageID #:52002
136

491. Other reports and investigations gave the City notice of the pattern of illegal 

misconduct of Detective Guevara:

a. In 1996, Defendant Guevara was accused of physically striking his stepdaughter 

in the face. Defendant Guevara again denied all allegations. Although the 

Command Channel Review and IAD concurred in a sustained finding and 

recommended three-day discipline in February 1996, Defendant Guevara only 

served a one-day suspension, and no Rule 14 violation was added despite finding 

that Guevara provided false information. Ex. 190 (CR No. 223928).

b. In 1999, Defendant Guevara stating “fuck you” to Sergeant David Oravetz; 

engaged Sergeant Oravetz in an unjustified verbal altercation when Guevara 

threatened to kick Sergeant Oravetz’s ass and pushed and poked Sergeant Oravetz 

in the chest; and failed to comply with a direct order to leave the district station—

all when observed by several on-duty members of CPD. Throughout the OPS 

investigation, Guevara still denied all allegations against him despite the presence 

of others and the statements supporting the allegations. The allegations were 

sustained. Yet, even after the disciplinary history described above and the 

allegations at hand, a Police Commander still recommended reducing his 

recommended 30-day discipline by ten days, “considering the circumstances and 

his complementary and disciplinary history.” In 2000, Guevara’s discipline was 

reduced to 20 days, and he was compensated for 10 days of back pay for the 

suspension he had already served. No Rule 14 violation was added or sustained, 

despite Guevara making false statements during the investigation. Ex. 190 (CR 

No. 251502).

c. In 2001, The FBI authored a 302 report detailing the criminal activity of Chicago 

Police Officer Joseph Miedzianowski and his associates, including Detective 

Guevara, in the 1980s and 1990s. The report explains that Guevara would 

apprehend drug and gun dealers and then allow them to “buy their way out of 

trouble.” Guevara also took bribes to alter the results of lineups. Guevara, using 

an attorney as a conduit, would also receive cash in exchange for the dismissal of 

murder cases he investigated. See Ex. 229 (FBI Report Dated June 23, 2001) at 

JR-L 02444-45. The report contained no indication that Guevara was questioned 

or that the IAD tried to find the people mentioned as having cases that were fixed 

by Guevara. Guevara has taken the Fifth in regard to all allegations regarding the 

topics covered in the report, as he has done in this case. ex. 209 (Guevara 

Deposition in Rivera v. Guevara et al.,) at 418-26; see also Ex. 283 (Guevara’s 

Resp. to Pl’s First Set of Inter in Iglesias) at 1-6.

d. Delgado Prompts Investigation: That same year, in 2001, a perjury investigation 

was initiated by State Representative William Delgado in response to complaints 

received from his constituents. Mr. Delgado alleged that Defendants Guevara and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 137 of 147 PageID #:52003
137

Halvorsen gave false testimony in 17 homicide cases ranging from 1984 to 1997, 

and requested that the State’s Attorney’s office also investigate the matter to 

determine possible misconduct on the part of the detectives. Ex. 292 (CR Delgado 

Investigation) at RFC-Johnson 1977-1990. The CPD Internal Affairs Division 

interviewed Delgado, who related that the 17 defendants convicted primarily on 

the false testimonies of Guevara and Halvorsen stated that “we’re tired of busting 

you on petty crime and we’re gonna get you. We’ll bust you for murder.” Id. at 

RFC-Johnson 001983. Delgado stated that in at least one case it was impossible 

for Guevara to obtain a detailed statement from the defendant due to Guevara’s 

poor Spanish. Id. Yet the State’s Attorney’s office closed its separate 

investigation without providing a report on the complaint, and without reviewing 

3 of the 17 cases. Id. at RFC-Johnson 001987-90. However, based on the closure 

of the case by the State’s Attorney’s office (without actually seeing that report) 

and the alleged “fruitless” attempts to contact witnesses regarding the complaint, 

the CPD closed the case with a finding of “Not Sustained” in 2002. Id. at 001979.

492. Despite notice of the misconduct, there continued a widespread failure to 

discipline, that resulted in wrongful convictions, including but not limited to the following:

a. Jacques Rivera: In 1988, Defendant Guevara caused 12-year-old Orlando Lopez 

to falsely identify Jacques Rivera as the person who shot Felix Valentin, and 

falsely claimed that the victim, Valentin, identified Jacques Rivera as his shooter 

before he died. Defendant Guevara reported to have obtained this identification at 

a time when the victim was in a medically induced coma, unresponsive to any 

stimuli, and laying in a bed that was in constant motion to prevent his lungs from 

filling with fluid and killing him. As a result of this misconduct, Rivera was 

convicted. In 2011, Rivera filed a post-conviction petition based on actual 

innocence and received an evidentiary hearing. In 2011, Lopez testified at an 

evidentiary hearing that he knew Rivera was the “wrong guy” when he made the 

identification. Ex. 112 (Rivera PC Hearing Tr. 5/23/11) at 58. As a result, Rivera 

received a new trial. Ultimately, the State’s Attorney dropped all charges and 

Rivera was granted a certificate of innocence. After Jacques Rivera’s exoneration, 

he brought suit against Defendant Guevara. A federal jury found that Guevara had 

violated Rivera’s civil rights and awarded Rivera $17 million in damages, as well 

as $175,000 in punitive damages against Defendant Guevara, his partner Steve 

Gawrys, and his supervisor Ed Mingey. Ex. 114 (Rivera COI); Ex 113 (Order 

Granting Rivera New Trial), at 2; Ex. 110 (Rivera 6.12.18 Trial Tr.) at 1313:1-4; 

Ex. 117, Rivera Judgment.

b. Juan Johnson: In 1989, Detective Guevara framed Juan Johnson for murder by 

coercing Samuel Perez into falsely implicating Johnson. To accomplish this feat, 

Guevara put Perez inside his car, showed Perez a photo of Juan Johnson, and told 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 138 of 147 PageID #:52004
138 

Perez that he wanted Juan Johnson to take the blame for the murder. 

Unsurprisingly, Perez subsequently falsely identified Johnson as a murderer. Ex. 

233 (Testimony of Samuel Perez, People v. Johnson, 89 CR 21806). Johnson filed 

his post-conviction petition in 1996, and appealed its denial in 2001—and in May 

2002, the appellate court reversed the denial, vacated his convictions, and 

remanded for a new trial. At his new trial, Johnson was acquitted by a jury. He 

sued Guevara in Johnson v. Guevara, 05-C-1042, eventually obtaining a verdict 

against him for $21 million. Ex. 234 (Jury Verdict in Johnson v. Guevara, 05 C 

1042). Guevara took the Fifth in regard to all allegations regarding Juan Johnson. 

ex. 209 (Guevara Deposition in Jacques v. Rivera et al.) at 398-402. 

c. Johnny Flores: Johnny Flores was wrongfully convicted of a 1989 murder that he 

did not commit, a conviction attributable to the misconduct of Defendant 

Guevara, who fabricated an identification to inculpate Mr. Flores. In 2022, the 

State asked the Court to vacate his convictions and subsequently dismissed all 

charges against him. Flores now seeks justice for the harm that Defendant 

Guevara and other officers caused him in a federal lawsuit. Defendant Guevara 

took the Fifth regarding all allegations regarding Johnny Flores. Ex. 235 (Johnny 

Flores, Nat’l Registry of Exonerations, 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=63

97); Ex. 236 (Amended Successive Post-Conviction Pet.) at 1-5; ex. 209 (Guevara 

Dep. in Rivera) at 445; see also Flores v. Guevara, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv01736. 

d. Jaime Rios: In 1989, Rios was wrongfully arrested, charged, and convicted for a 

murder that he did not commit– a conviction that was ultimately dismissed after 

evidence was presented showing that a witness had been threatened by Defendant 

Guevara into implicating Rios. In 2022, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s 

Office agreed to dismiss his conviction; within days, he had obtained a certificate 

of innocence; and he has now filed a federal lawsuit against Defendant Guevara 

and the City of Chicago. Ex. 237 (Jaime Rios, Nat’l Exoneration Registry, 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=63

87). 

e. Jose Maysonet: In 1990, Defendant Guevara repeatedly beat Jose Maysonet until 

he confessed to a double homicide that rested solely on that coerced confession. 

In 2016, Maysonet's double murder conviction was vacated and he was granted a 

new trial. Over a year later, the Cook County State's Attorney dropped charges 

against Jose after five retired Chicago police officers, including Defendants 

Guevara, Halvorsen, and Mingey, invoked their fifth amendment right and 

refused to testify. Ex. 238 (Megan Crepeau, Prosecutors Drop Murder Charges 

after 5 Ex-Chicago Cops Plan to Take the 5th, Chicago Tribune (Nov. 15, 2017), 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2017/11/15/prosecutors-drop-murder-chargesCase: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 139 of 147 PageID #:52005
139 

after-5-ex-chicago-cops-plan-to-take-the-5th/). Another victim of this same string 

of misconduct as Maysonet, Alfredo Gonzalez’s conviction for the same 

homicide was vacated in 2022, and both Maysonet and Gonzalez have filed 

lawsuits against the City of Chicago and Guevara seeking justice for their 

wrongful convictions. Ex. 239 (Alfredo Gonzalez, Nat’l Registry of Exonerations, 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=63

82); see Gonzalez v. Guevara, et al., Case No. 22-cv-6496; see also Ex. 293 

(Guevera Dep. in Sierra); see supra at ¶490. 

f. David Lugo (Colon): In 1991, David Lugo was just 20 years old when he was 

framed for murder by Defendant Guevara and his fellow officers, when Defendant 

Guevara coerced Efrain and Julio Sanchez to pick David Colon out of a lineup, 

See Ex. 240 (Affidavits of Efrain & Julio Sanchez, Police Reports from People v. 

Colon, 93 CR 23750). In 2022, his conviction was vacated. He has since filed a 

lawsuit against Guevara and other officers for their misconduct. Guevara has 

invoked the Fifth Amendment regarding Lugo. Ex. 241 (Order Vacating 

Conviction); see Lugo v. Guevara, et al; Ex. 293 (Guevera Dep. in Sierra); see 

supra at ¶490. 

g. Marilyn Mulero: Marilyn was wrongfully convicted of a 1992 double murder 

based on evidence fabricated by notoriously corrupt Chicago Police Defendants 

Guevara and Halvorsen. Marilyn was pressured to enter a guilty plea without a 

trial and was sentenced to death. In 2022, all charges against her were dropped. 

She has also filed suit against Defendants Guevara—who has invoked the fifth 

amendment regarding Mulero--and Halvorsen. Ex. 242 (Michelle Gallardo, 

Marilyn Mulero sues Chicago, disgraced CPD detectives for allegedly framing 

her for murder, ABC News (July 25, 2023), https://abc7chicago.com/marilynmulero-reynaldo-guevara-chicago-police-misconduct-sued/13547189/); see Ex. 

293 (Guevera Dep. in Sierra) at 181-186. 

h. Madeline Mendoza: Mendoza was arrested in 1992, and convicted in 1993, for a 

crime she did not commit, based on false statements obtained by Defendants 

Guevara and Halvorsen. In 2023, the prosecution agreed to vacate Mendoza's 

conviction and the case was dismissed. Ex. 243 (Madeline Mendoza, Nat'l 

Registry of Exonerations, 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=65

19). 

i. Serrano & Montanez: In 1993, Detective Guevara used physical violence and 

inducements to coerce Francisco Vicente into falsely testifying against Armando 

Serrano, Jorge Pacheco, and Jose Montanez. See Ex. 244 (Affidavit of Francisco 

Vicente) at ¶¶4-14. In that same investigation, Detective Guevara beat Timothy 

Rankins with a flashlight, threw him out of his chair, and placed him in a 

chokehold to induce a statement implicating Serrano and Montanez, causing 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 140 of 147 PageID #:52006
140

Rankins to testify falsely against the men in the Grand Jury. Ex. 245 (Testimony 

of Timothy Rankins in People v. Serrano, 93 CR 18173) at JR-L 02899-912. 

Further, Serrano, Montanez, and Pacheco had their criminal histories pulled in 

this case before they even became suspects. See Ex. 248 (Lassar Report Dated 

3/3/15) at 5. In 2004, Jose Montanez filed a post-conviction petition based on the 

recantation affidavit of the State’s key witness Vicente, who provided a detailed 

statement describing how his false testimony was given as a result of threats, 

intimidation and physical abuse by Defendant Guevara. See Ex. 246 (Montanez 

PC Petition, 2004). Likewise, in 2005, Armando Serrano filed a post-conviction 

petition alleging actual innocence based on Vicente’s affidavit and multitudes of 

other affidavits, transcripts, OPS complaints, and other supporting documentation, 

revealing that Guevara had engaged in a pattern and practice of coercing evidence 

through the use of threats, intimidation, lies, and physical abuse. Ex. 247 (Serrano 

PC Pet.) at 1-2. The City of Chicago then determined that Montanez and Serrano 

were wrongfully convicted. See Ex. 248 (Lassar Report Dated 3/3/15). In 2016, 

both men were exonerated and received certificates of innocence. Ex. 249 

(Certificates of Innocence for Jose Montanez and Armando Serrano). Guevara has 

taken the Fifth in regard to all allegations regarding Vicente, Rankins, Montanez, 

and Serrano. Ex. 228 (Testimony of Reynaldo Guevara in People v. Serrano & 

Montanez, 93 CR 18173) at JR-L 077138-43, JR-L 077148-62. Montanez and 

Serrano’s lawsuit against, inter alia, Defendants Guevara, Halvorsen, and the City 

of Chicago was settled for $20.5 million after Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment was denied as to the plaintiffs' claims of fabricated evidence, pretrial 

detention, malicious prosecution, federal and state-law conspiracy, Brady claims, 

IIED, and failure to intervene. Ex. 284 (Dkt. 261, Mem. Op. & Order, Serrano v. 

Guevara, et al., No. 17-cv-2869 (June 4, 2020) at 59-60; see also Ex. 285 (Don 

Babwin, Chicago Awards $20.5M to 2 Men Allegedly Framed by Detective, NBC 

News (Sept. 14, 2021), https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-awards20-5m-to-2-men-allegedly-framed-by-detective/2612309/

j. Robert Bouto: in 1993, Detective Guevara manipulated the results of the line-up 

in which Mr. Bouto was identified. Specifically, Detective Guevara allowed 

witnesses to see Mr. Bouto in the police station prior to the line-up, allowed them 

to view photographs Mr. Bouto and confer with one another before the line-up, 

and threatened a witness that Guevara would “put a case” on him if he did not 

cooperate. (See Ex. 250, Affidavit of Rey Lozada, at ¶¶ 3-5, 6-11; Ex. 251, 

Affidavit of Carl Richmond, at ¶¶ 5, 7-9) (stating he was threatened to make an 

identification from Carl Richmond, with Det. Guevara saying that he could make 

Richmond’s life very uncomfortable if Richmond did not identify Robert Bouto 

as the murderer of one of Richmond’s friends). Ultimately, the City of Chicago 

investigated Mr. Bouto’s claims and concluded that Mr. Bouto is more likely than 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 141 of 147 PageID #:52007
141 

not innocent. (See Ex. 227, Lassar Report, at JR-L 055738-39). Guevara has 

taken the Fifth in regard to all allegations regarding Bouto’s case. Ex. 209, 

Guevara Deposition in Jacques Rivera v. Guevara et al., at 560); see also Ex. 293 

(Guevera Dep. in Sierra); see supra at ¶490. 

k. Geraldo Iglesias: In 1993, Geraldo Iglesias became yet another “victim of nowdisgraced and former Detective Reynaldo Guevara’s pattern and practice of 

misconduct and framing innocent persons” when he was wrongfully convicted of 

murder and sentenced to 35 years. The state finally dismissed charges against him 

in 2019, and Iglesias was granted a Certificate of Innocence in 2022. Ex. 252 

(COI Order) at 1.

l. Jose Cruz: In 1993, Cruz was arrested and ultimately wrongly convicted of a 

murder, based on fabricated and coerced statements caused by Defendant Guevara 

and other officers. In 2022, the prosecution agreed to vacate and dismiss his 

conviction. In 2023, he obtained a certificate of innocence, and filed a lawsuit 

against the City of Chicago, Defendant Guevara, and others for his wrongful 

conviction. Ex. 253 (Jose Cruz, Nat’l Registry of Exonerations, 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=63

43).

m. Almodovar & Negron: The City of Chicago has also determined that Roberto 

Almodovar was wrongfully convicted in another case investigated by Guevara in 

1994. (See Ex. 254, Lassar Report regarding Roberto Almodovar, Dated 2/9/15, at 

JR-L 042869, JR-L 042882). In that case, Guevara was alleged to have framed 

Almodovar for a murder he did not commit by surreptitiously showing his 

photograph to witnesses before they viewed a lineup and then falsifying reports to 

make it seem as if the witnesses had picked Almodovar out of a line-up without 

any influence by Guevara. See Ex. 255 (Affidavit of Melinda Power); Ex. 256 

(Post-Trial Testimony of Kennelly Saez in People v. Negron, 94 CR 24318). 

Almodovar, and his co-defendant William Negron, have both since been 

exonerated. See Ex. 257 (Order Vacating Judgment and Sentence in People v. 

Negron, 94 CR 24318). Guevara has taken the Fifth in regard to all allegations 

regarding the case against Almodovar and Negron. Ex. 209 (Guevara Deposition 

in Jacques v. Rivera et al., at 434-39); see also Ex. 293 (Guevera Dep. in Sierra); 

see supra at ¶490. 

n. Nelson Gonzalez: Nelson Gonzalez was framed with a 1994 murder, resulting 

from a fabricated identification conducted by Defendant Guevara. In 2022, 

Gonzalez’s convictions were vacated and the case dismissed, and in 2023, he was 

granted a certificate of innocence. He has also filed suit against Defendant 

Guevara, among others involved in his wrongful conviction. Ex. 258 (Nelson 

Gonzalez, Nat'l Registry of Exonerations, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 142 of 147 PageID #:52008
142 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=63

79).

o. Carlos Andino: In 1994, Defendants Guevara and Halvorsen, among other 

officers, manufactured false identifications that resulted in the wrongful arrest and 

conviction of Carlos Andino. In 2021, Andino filed for post-conviction relief, and 

in 2022, the Cook County State’s attorney’s office agreed to vacate Andino’s 

conviction. In 2023, he was awarded a certificate of innocence, and filed suit 

against Guevara and other officers to seek compensation for his wrongful 

conviction. Ex. 259 (Carlos Andino, Nat'l Registry of Exonerations, 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=63

81). 

p. Thomas Sierra: In 1995, Defendant Guevara told Jose Melendez to falsely 

identify Thomas Sierra as the shooter of Noel Andujar, even though Melendez 

had not seen the shooter and told Defendant Guevara as much. In addition, 

Defendant Guevara wrote fabricated reports falsely saying that Jose Melendez and 

Alberto Rodriguez had identified a car as the one used in the Andujar shooting. 

Defendant Guevara invoked the fifth amendment when questioned about all 

aspects of Sierra’s case. Ex. 121 at 34-35. The state finally dismissed charges 

against Mr. Sierra in 2019, and Mr. Sierra was granted a Certificate of Innocence 

in 2022. He spent over 22 years in prison due to Guevara’s misconduct and is 

suing the City of Chicago and defendant officers, including Defendant Guevara, 

due to that misconduct. Ex. 252 (COI Transcript) at 43, 53-73; Ex. 286 (COI in 

Sierra); see also Sierra v. Guevara, et al., 1:18-cv-03029 (N.D.Ill). 

q. Edwin Davila: In 1995, Davila was framed for murder by Defendant Guevara and 

his fellow corrupt officers based on fabricated identifications. In 2022, after 

spending over 24 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, all charges 

against Mr. Davila were dismissed. Davila now seeks justice for the harm that 

Defendant Guevara and other officers caused him in a federal lawsuit. Guevara 

has invoked the Fifth Amendment regarding Davila. Ex. 260 (Edwin Davila, Nat'l 

Registry of Exonerations, 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=65

07); see also Davila v. Guevara, et al. Case No. 1:23-cv-01739; Ex. 293 (Guevera 

Dep. in Sierra); see supra at ¶490. 

r. Gamalier Rivera: In 1996, Gamalier Rivera was wrongfully arrested and 

convicted for murder resulting from fabricated identifications caused by 

Defendant Guevara and other officers. After years of seeking post-conviction 

relief, the state dismissed charges against him, and he was granted a certificate of 

innocence in 2022. Ex. 261 (Gamalier Rivera, Nat’l Registry of Exonerations, 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=63

98). Rivera has filed a lawsuit against Guevara and other officers for their 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 143 of 147 PageID #:52009
143 

misconduct. Guevara has invoked the Fifth Amendment regarding Rivera. See 

Rivera v. Guevara, et al., Case. No. 1:23-cv-01743; see also Ex. 293 (Guevera 

Dep. in Sierra); see supra at ¶490. 

s. Louis Robinson: Louis Robinson was wrongfully convicted of a 1996 drive-by 

shooting that killed Kelly Velez, based on coercive identification and fabricated 

evidence caused by Defendant Guevara. In 2023, his post-conviction petition was 

granted following an evidentiary hearing, and the State dismissed all charges. Ex. 

262 (Louis Robinson, Nat’l Registry of Exonerations, 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=66

39). 

t. Juan and Rosendo Hernandez: Juan and Rosendo Hernandez were wrongfully 

convicted of the 1997 shooting of Jorge Gonzalez and collectively spent decades 

for a crime they did not commit due to the misconduct of Defendant Guevara and 

other officers, including the disgraced Joseph Miedzianowski, and Halvorsen. In 

2022, their convictions were vacated, and they received certificates of innocence 

in 2023. Ex. 263 (Juan Hernandez Certificate of Innocence); Ex. 264 (Rosendo 

Hernandez Certificate of Innocence). They have filed a lawsuit against Guevara 

and other officers for their misconduct. See Hernandez et al. v. Guevara et al., 

Case No. 1:23-cv-01737. Guevara has invoked the Fifth Amendment regarding 

the Hernandez brothers. See Ex. 293 (Guevera Dep. in Sierra); see supra at ¶490. 

u. John Martinez: John Martinez was wrongfully convicted of a homicide due to 

falsified evidence, including fabricated identifications and coercive interrogations, 

caused by Defendant Guevara and other officers. In 2023, Martinez’s conviction 

was vacated, and less than a month later, his case was dismissed. In 2024, two 

others involved in this case – Thomas Kelly and Jose Tinajero – also had their 

wrongful convictions resulting from the same homicide dismissed based on 

Guevara’s misconduct. Martinez has filed a lawsuit against the City of Chicago 

and Defendant Guevara, seeking justice for his wrongful conviction. Ex. 265 

(John Martinez, Nat’l Registry of Exonerations, 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=65

52). See Martinez v. Guevara, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01741. 

v. David Gecht and Richard Kwil: In 1999, David Gecht and Richard Kwil were 

both wrongfully convicted of a murder due to Defendants Guevara and 

Halvorsen’s misconduct. During a single night, Defendants Guevara, Halvorsen, 

and other officers subjected both Gecht and Kwil to torturous investigations, 

breaking their wills and coercing them into signing false confessions. They also 

obtained a false confession from Ruben Hernandez, falsely implicating all three in 

the crime. In 2022, Gecht and Kwil’s charges were dismissed, and both were 

granted certificates of innocence. Ex. 266 (Gecht Court of Claims Order); Ex. 267 

(Kwil COI Order). The charges against Hernandez were also dismissed, and all 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 144 of 147 PageID #:52010
144 

three have pending lawsuits against Defendants Guevara—who has taken the 

Fifth regarding allegations against all three—and Halvorsen, among other 

officers, and the City of Chicago. See Gecht v. Guevara, et al., Case No. 23-1742; 

Kwil v. Guevara, et al., Case No. 23-cv-1742; Hernandez v. Guevara, et al., Case 

No. 23-cv-15375; see also Ex. 287 (Richard Kwil, Nat'l Registry of Exonerations, 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=65

81); see also Ex. 293 (Guevara Dep. In Sierra); see supra at ¶490. 

w. Eruby Abrego and Jeremiah Cain: Eruby Abrego and Jeremiah Cain were 

wrongly convicted of the 1999 murder of Jose Garcia and aggravated battery of 

Julio Lugo, despite having nothing to do with the murder, due to the false 

identifications, falsified confessions obtained through torture, and other evidence 

manufactured by Defendants Guevara, Halvorsen, and others. In 2022, their 

wrongful convictions were vacated and the charges were dismissed. Both now 

seek justice for the harm that Defendant Guevara and other officers caused him in 

a federal lawsuit. Ex. 268 (Eruby Abrego, Nat’l Registry of Exonerations, 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=63

75); see also Abrego v. Guevara, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01740; Cain v. 

Guevara, et al., 1:23-cv-14282 (N.D. Ill.). 

x. On February 29, 2024, seven men – Jayson Aguiar, who served 20 years, David 

Kruger, who served 14 years, Juan Molina, who served 12.5 years, Edwin Ortiz, 

who served 25 years, Oscar Soto, who served 3 years, Victor Vera, who served 19 

years, and Tyrece Williams, who served 20 years–filed petitions seeking to 

reverse their decades-old convictions tied to disgraced former Chicago Police 

Detective Reynaldo Guevara. The men—who have completed their sentences and 

are out of custody—all claim their innocence. Ex. 269 (Aguiar Pet.); Ex. 270 

(Kruger Pet.); Ex. 271 (Molina Pet.); Ex. 272 (Ortiz Pet.); Ex. 273 (Soto Pet.); Ex. 

274 (Vera Pet.); Ex. 275 (Williams Pet.). 

y. Plaintiff’s retained expert Jennifer Dysart stated that “It seems that a common 

theme in the Guevara cases I have reviewed is [for Guevara to] manipulate 

witnesses who had poor opportunities to view the perpetrator. Most of the cases 

had several estimator variables factors: a limited opportunity to see the 

perpetrator, the presence of stress and arousal, the presence of a weapon, and 

issues with perpetrator descriptions. In summary, the witnesses in these cases 

were likely vulnerable to suggestion and influence due to the presence of multiple 

estimator variables that can lead to a weak memory for a perpetrator.” Ex. 58 

(Dysart Report) at 24. 

493. It was not until 2013 that the City first investigated Guevara, hiring Sidley Austin 

to conduct a review of a portion of his cases. When the reports were concluded in late 2014 and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 145 of 147 PageID #:52011
145 

2015, the reports found that Guevara had engaged in investigative misconduct including through 

improper identification procedures, falsifying reports, and physical abuse during interrogations. 

Ex. 120 (Lassar Report regarding Solache and Reyes, dated 12/12/14); Ex. 254 (Lassar Report 

on Almodovar, dated 2/9/15); Ex. 227 (Lassar Report regarding Bouto, dated 3/3/15); Ex. 248 

(Lassar Report regarding Serrano and Montanez, dated 3/3/15). 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

DEMETRIUS JOHNSON 

By: /s/ Steve Art 

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Jon Loevy 

Anand Swaminathan 

Steve Art

Rachel Brady

Sean Starr

Alyssa Martinez

Meg Gould 

Ruth Brown 

LOEVY + LOEVY 

311 N. Aberdeen St. 

Chicago, IL 60607 

(312) 243-5900 

steve@loevy.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 146 of 147 PageID #:52012
146 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Steve Art, an attorney, hereby certify that, on June 11, 2024, I filed the foregoing 

PLAINTIFF’S DEMETRIUS JOHNSON’S STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS 

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS using 

the Court’s CM/ECF system, which effected service on all counsel of record. 

 

/s/ Steve Art 

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Jon Loevy 

Anand Swaminathan 

Steve Art

Rachel Brady

Sean Starr

Alyssa Martinez

Meg Gould 

Ruth Brown 

LOEVY + LOEVY 

311 N. Aberdeen St. 

Chicago, IL 60607 

(312) 243-5900 

steve@loevy.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 340 Filed: 06/11/24 Page 147 of 147 PageID #:52013