Opinion ID: 796898
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Alleged conspiratorial acts in 2003

Text: 32 Chesher's statement of the facts on appeal largely mirrors what she presented in her brief in opposition to the defendants' motions for summary judgment before the district court. Significantly, however, in Chesher's factual recitation in support of her conspiracy claim before the district court, she alleged conspiratorial events extending into May, June, and July of 2003. The dates of these acts in 2003 are relevant to the jurisdictional question addressed in Part III below. Chesher alleged that, in May of 2003, a member of the Prosecutor's Office demanded a secret Sunday session with Tobias shortly before his deposition. She asserted that this session amounted to an interrogation and was improperly concealed. 33 Furthermore, Chesher alleged that a representative of the Prosecutor's Office was present at Tobias's deposition on May 14, 2003 and June 25, 2003. She claimed that between those dates, the Prosecutor's Office sent Tobias a letter stating that the County had decided to provide him with counsel for his civil trial. Following the second day of Tobias's deposition, however, in which he testified that his suspension was merely an effort to protect the county, the Prosecutor's Office allegedly sent him a second letter dated July 11, 2003 which sharply attacked his testimony and reminded him that provision for his defense in the civil case could be withdrawn. In the Joint Final Pretrial Order before the district court, Chesher identified these and other communications dated in May, June, and July of 2003. Counsel for Chesher also referred to these alleged acts of conspiracy before the district court in the Joint Final Pretrial Conference on October 6, 2005. 34 The portion of Chesher's brief on appeal that describes the alleged conspiracy omits any reference to the events occurring in 2003. Instead, Chesher now contends that the alleged cover-up activities concluded in 2002 at the latest. She continues to assert, however, that the alleged conspiracy and cover-up significantly compounded the injury to the plaintiffs.