Court Opinion

ID: 9516747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:51:06.546683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:05.983496
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE JOSEPH GORDON, dissenting: I cannot concur with the analysis of the majority because it begs the key question upon which this decision pivots, namely, the relevance of Alstory Simon’s confession which was excluded by the trial court. The majority contends that because Simon confessed long after the plaintiff’s arrest and criminal conviction, his confession would have no relevance in the plaintiffs malicious prosecution trial, since the defendants in such a trial must be judged on the basis of what was known to them at the time of the plaintiff’s criminal arrest and prosecution. The majority is invested in the point with which I fully agree that proof of actual innocence is not a required element in the prosecution for the tort of malicious prosecution. Nor, in this case, is it needed to establish the element of favorable outcome since the State stipulated to that fact. Note, however, that the State stipulated only that the criminal proceedings against the plaintiff were “terminated in a manner indicative of his innocence,” but that it did not stipulate as to the plaintiffs actual innocence. Nevertheless, I fully concur that this stipulation would suffice if its admittance was to establish the element of favorable outcome, so as to obviate the need for any additional evidence. However, the majority refuses to acknowledge that under the facts of this case proof of actual innocence would be highly relevant to help prove the absence of probable cause as well as the presence of malice. In this regard, the majority recognizes that there was no stipulation as to actual innocence and that the Simon confession would, if introduced at trial, be instrumental in proving actual innocence. The majority posits that the Simon confession, which came 16 years after the plaintiff was tried and convicted, has no material relevancy since it did not exist as of the time of the plaintiffs arrest and criminal trial, and that probable cause must be determined by the information available to the police at the time of the arrest and criminal trial. I submit, however, that these reasons overlook the specific facts of this case and the thrust of the reasoning which Aguirre v. City of Chicago, 382 Ill. App. 3d 89 (2008), brings to bear upon them. There is no dispute that the confession and conviction of a third party for the crime charged against the plaintiff is substantial proof of the plaintiffs actual innocence. Correspondingly, I do not challenge the principle that proof of actual innocence is not required to establish the elements of a malicious prosecution action, including the element of a favorable outcome. Nor would a confession and conviction of a third party 16 years after the fact in and of itself meaningfully evidence that the police were aware of that third party’s confession or that they otherwise acted with sufficient information at the time they acted against the plaintiff, so as to lack probable cause to warrant the plaintiffs arrest or prosecution. On the other hand, as pointed out in Aguirre, proof that the plaintiff did not in fact commit the crime is highly probative of the fact that a confession obtained from the plaintiff at the time of his arrest was false since he could not have committed the crime to which the third party confessed. Likewise, in this case, proof of the actual innocence of the plaintiff would effectively establish that the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen the plaintiff commit the crime was false. Why then would the falsity of a confession or, as in this case, the falsity of the testimony of eyewitnesses be material since actual innocence is not a required element of proof? The answer is very clear, because the actual falsity of testimony would lend substantially greater credence to the subsequent claim by these witnesses upon their recantation that the original false testimony was induced by police coercion or unlawful enticement. The case of Aguirre, 382 Ill. App. 3d 89, fully reflects the significance of the aforementioned considerations. In Aguirre, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendants alleging malicious prosecution. Aguirre, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 90. Following a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs finding that the defendants lacked probable cause and acted with malice when they prosecuted the plaintiffs. Aguirre, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 90. Defendants appealed alleging, inter alia, that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of the confessed murder describing the crime. Aguirre, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 90. The defendants specifically asserted that the evidence was irrelevant to whether they had probable cause to prosecute plaintiffs, that the testimony lacked probative value, and that even if it had probative value that value was outweighed by the prejudice done by its introduction. Aguirre, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 96. The appellate court disagreed with the defendants and affirmed the decision of the circuit court to admit the true murderer’s confession as evidence in the malicious prosecution trial. Aguirre, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 98. In doing so, the appellate court found that the confession was relevant to establishing both that the plaintiffs received a favorable termination of the proceedings and that the defendants had acted with malice. Aguirre, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 98. With respect to malice, the appellate court found that the confession of the actual murderer was relevant because the plaintiffs attempted to use it in order to establish that their initial confessions to the police were false. Aguirre, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 98-99. The court noted: “Perez [the confessed killer] testified that he committed the crime and testified to intricate details only the killer would know. Therefore, the jury could accept that Perez committed the crime by accepting his testimony; there is no need for the jury to draw an inference. If Perez committed the crimes then plaintiffs could not have committed them. This is the only logical conclusion that follows from Perez’s admission. Likewise, the only logical and reasonable conclusion from Perez’s testimony is that plaintiffs’ confessions were false; if they were true, then Perez could not have committed the murder.” Aguirre, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 99. The appellate court further explained that Perez’s testimony also worked in concert with other evidence that the plaintiffs had presented at trial to allow the jury to infer malice, namely, evidence that showed that while their version of events regarding the murder was substantially similar, they were held in detention and could not have communicated with each other before the State filed charges. Aguirre, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 99. As such, the court concluded that together with Perez’s confession, an inference could be made that the police officers “suggested facts and answers and, in essence, created the false statements made by plaintiffs.” Aguirre, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 99. In coming to this conclusion, the appellate court rejected the defendants’ argument that the introduction of the evidence was prejudicial because it confused for the jury evidence regarding what had transpired at the time Perez confessed, and the evidence of what the defendants had known at the time the initial police investigation took place. Aguirre, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 100. The appellate court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the evidence of Perez’s confession improperly injected the plaintiffs’ guilt or innocence with the issue of whether the defendants had probable cause to prosecute the plaintiffs. Aguirre, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 100. The appellate court found that in both instances any alleged prejudice or confusion was mitigated by the circuit court’s proper instruction to the jury that in considering probable cause, “ ‘it is the state of mind of [the] one initiating the prosecution and not the actual facts of the case or guilt or innocence of the accused that is at issue.’ ” Aguirre, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 100. While the reasoning in Aguirre was applied to affirm the trial court’s admission of the third-party confession, it must likewise, in this case, lead to the conclusion that the circuit court abused its discretion in not permitting plaintiff to introduce at trial evidence of Simon’s confession and the testimony of his wife Inez regarding her knowledge of the shooter. The record reveals that this entire case centered on the credibility of the witnesses at trial. While on one hand the two police officers, Salvatore and Gray, maintained that the statements they obtained from four witnesses, Williams, Taylor, Edwards and Beckwith, during their investigation of the crime provided them with sufficient probable cause to institute the criminal proceedings against the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s entire case centered on establishing that these witnesses had been manipulated by the police into making false statements and identifications against the plaintiff. Specifically, on one hand the two officers, Salvatore and Gray, testified that they based their probable cause determination on: (1) the statements of two eyewitnesses (Taylor and Edwards) who identified the plaintiff as the shooter; (2) the statement of Williams that the plaintiff committed a robbery at gunpoint moments before the murders; and (3) the statement of Beckwith, who identified the plaintiff as leaving the scene of the murders just after they occurred. On the other hand, all of the eyewitnesses who made incriminating statements against the plaintiff, except for Williams, who was deceased at the time of the trial, testified that they never actually identified the plaintiff as the shooter and that they were in fact either coerced by the police or promised something in return for providing statements against the plaintiff. Specifically, at trial Taylor testified that he never told the officers that he saw the shooter. He further averred that during questioning at the police station he was kept in a dimly lit room for about 10 hours and that Officer Salvatore threatened him by pounding a flashlight into the palm of his hand and by telling him that he should be more afraid of the police than of the plaintiff. Taylor further testified, contrary to the testimony of the two officers, that he never asked the officers to go see his grandmother and that the officers never permitted him to go to a nursing home. He also denied that his friend, Williams, ever told him to tell the officers “what he really saw.” This statement was corroborated by the testimony of one of the defendants, Detective Perry, who averred that during her questioning of Williams, Williams never told her that Taylor had seen the shooting. Taylor also testified that the only reason he testified against the plaintiff in his 1982 trial was because Officer Salvatore brought him to the courthouse prior to trial to speak with an assistant State’s Attorney (ASA) about a homicide he was “supposed to have witnessed,” and because he also took him to the courthouse on the date of the trial to testify against the plaintiff. Taylor averred that when he attempted to leave the courthouse on the day of the trial, he was prevented from doing so by a man who followed him out of the courtroom and told him it was in his “best interest to testify.” Taylor specifically stated that he testified falsely because he was afraid of Officer Salvatore and because the ASA told him that “he was making the right decision to testify” and that “the only way he would get out of the situation was to go with the flow.” Similarly, Edwards testified that the entire portion of the 1982 police report attributed to him was inaccurate. He specifically pointed out that when he was questioned by the police on the night of the shooting, he never told them that he observed the plaintiff shoot the victims. Edwards explained that he lied at the grand jury hearing against the plaintiff because at that time he had an assault charge pending against him, which was dropped after he testified. With respect to Williams’ testimony regarding the plaintiffs robbing him of $2 at gunpoint minutes before the shooting, the record reveals that it was rebutted by the testimony of both Detective Perry and Sheffield Younger. Sheffield Younger testified that when he was questioned by the police officers soon after the shooting in 1982, he told them that on the night of the shooting, he spent the entire evening standing next to his friend, Williams, and that no one approached them or tried to take money from them. In addition, Officer Perry testified that when she questioned Williams, he never told her that the plaintiff took money from him but, rather, asserted that because he had no money, the plaintiff merely told him he was “getting a lucky break” and walked away. Moreover, Officer Perry testified that Williams never told her that he observed plaintiff in the bleachers before or after the shooting. Finally, Perry testified that Williams told her that even though he was almost robbed at gunpoint, he never called the police but just went swimming. Finally, with respect to Beckwith’s testimony that in 1982 after the shooting he told the officers that before the shooting he observed four individuals in the bleachers, one of whom he recognized as the plaintiff, and that after the shooting he saw two men leaving the scene, one of whom was the plaintiff, Officer Salvatore himself admitted that these statements were not contained in his 1982 police report and that if Beckwith had made these statements to him during the investigation, he would have written them down. Moreover, the record reveals that Beckwith did not testify at the plaintiffs 1983 criminal trial and that he was never subpoenaed to do so. Under the above detailed facts of the case, it is undeniable that the trial focused on the credibility of the plaintiff’s recanting witnesses, who alleged that the police officers were in collusion and orchestrated the plaintiffs arrest and prosecution without probable cause. Ordinarily, the dominant credibility issue with respect to recanted testimony is whether to believe the recantation and decide that the original testimony must be false, or vice versa, to believe the original testimony and conclude that the recantation is false. However, when there is proof of the actual innocence of the criminal defendant against whom the recanting witnesses originally testified, the possibility and certainty of the likelihood that the original testimony was true and that the recantation is false dissolve. Actual innocence of the party accused establishes conclusively that the original testimony when offered was incorrect. Consequently, the introduction of evidence regarding Simon’s confession, followed by his guilty plea and subsequent conviction of the Washington Park murders, would have established with a high degree of conclusivity that Taylor had testified falsely at the plaintiffs 1983 trial and that Taylor, Edwards and Beck-with had all given false information to the police during the 1982 investigation. This in turn would have given substantially greater credence to the claim of these witnesses and informants that their false testimony was attributable to police coercion, intimidation or promises. The alternative would be to presume the coincidence that each of these witnesses made the same error in observation or entered into an independent course of collusion to imprison the plaintiff. Without proof of actual innocence there would be a third alternative, namely, that the original testimony was true, with the recanting testimony being false, without either police coercion or collusion of the parties. The establishment of actual innocence leaves no room for the possibility that the original testimony might be true after all but compels the conclusion that the original testimony was false. The inquiry then focuses on the factors that caused such false testimony to be given in the first place and elevates the likelihood that such false testimony was induced by police coercion or enticement. As such, this evidence was highly relevant to any determination by the jury with respect to the question of whether the commencement of the criminal proceedings against the plaintiff lacked the underpinnings of probable cause and whether it was the product of bad faith and malice on the part of the police. Moreover, Simon’s confession and Inez’s testimony that she was afraid of her husband were relevant to determining the adequacy and reasonableness of the police’s investigation, prior to prosecuting the plaintiff, which is a factor to be considered in determining the existence of probable cause. See W Prosser, Torts §119, at 841-42 (4th ed. 1984) (“[Probable cause] includes first of all an honest belief in the guilt of the accused, since the reasonable man will not prosecute another whom he does not believe to be guilty; and this belief must be one as to the fact of guilt, rather than as to the possibility of securing a conviction. While it need not approach absolute certainty as to the facts, and it is not inconsistent with a considerable element of doubt, it must be more than mere conjecture or unfounded suspicion. Beyond this, the belief must be supported by appearances known to the defendant at the time ***. The appearances must be such as to lead a reasonable man to set the criminal proceeding in motion. The defendant is not necessarily required to verify his information, where it appears to be reliable; but where a reasonable man would investigate further before beginning the prosecution, he may be liable for failure to do so. All such factors as the reliability of the source, the availability of further information and the difficulty of obtaining it, the reputation of the accused, and his opportunity to offer an explanation, and the apparent necessity of prompt action, are to be considered in determining whether it was reasonable to act without seeking verification”). In that respect, the record reveals that the officers did not bring Inez or Simon to the police station for questioning, while they did so with the other witnesses who provided them with information incriminating the plaintiff. Moreover, in her pretrial deposition, Inez testified that one of the reasons she did not volunteer any information to the officers who came to question her at home on August 14, 1982, was because her husband was standing right next to her and she was afraid of him. In addition, based on her observation of the shooting, Inez could have testified that she never saw plaintiff in Washington Park on the night of the murders. This evidence would have corroborated the plaintiffs assertion in the cause at bar, which was attacked at trial by the defendants, that he was never at the park on the night in question. Furthermore, there is evidence in the record that indicates that the police officers were not as thorough with their investigation as even ASA Kerstein would have liked and which he detailed in his memorandum attached to the felony warrant approval. Specifically, there is testimony that after Younger told the police that Williams was never robbed on the night of the shooting, the police did not ask Younger to sign a statement, and never reinterviewed him to determine which of the two witnesses was speaking the truth. As stated in Aguirre, any prejudice or confusion that might have resulted to the defendants by the admission of the aforesaid evidence could have been mitigated by instructions on the part of the trial court to the jury that, in considering probable cause, “ ‘it is the state of mind of [the] one initiating the prosecution and not the actual facts of the case or guilt or innocence of the accused that is at issue.’ ” Aguirre, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 100. As such, we conclude that it was unreasonable for the circuit court to bar the introduction of the evidence at trial. Aguirre, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 100-01. The majority in the exercise of its own initiative has discovered that after the conclusion of the plaintiffs malicious prosecution trial, Simon, by way of a postconviction petition, attempted to retract his confession. In his attempted retraction in 1999, Simon contended that his confession and plea were coerced and enticed by false promises of various rewards, such as book and movie deals made by professor David Protess, director of the Medill Innocence Project at Northwestern University, who was responsible for challenging the plaintiff’s conviction. This petition was summarily dismissed by the trial court as frivolous and patently without merit before the commencement of the plaintiffs malicious prosecution trial. A subsequent petition was filed by Simon after the conclusion of the plaintiffs malicious prosecution trial, alleging actual innocence. This petition was disallowed as a successive postconviction petition since it was predicated upon purported evidence which had been available to Simon when he filed his initial petition and therefore did not meet the cause and prejudice test under People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444, 458, 793 N.E.2d 609, 620-21 (2002) (see also 725 ILCS 5/122 — 3 (West 2002)). Obviously, these attempted recantations by Simon do not impact on the relevance and admissibility of his original confession. Nor, given the reasons urged by Simon in support of his retractions, namely, that his confession was elicited by promises from the individuals involved in the Northwestern University Innocence Project, would these attempted recantations dilute the probative value of Simon’s confession in establishing the plaintiffs actual innocence. It is worth noting that the defendants in opposing the plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim did not even attempt to introduce or argue the Simon retractions either at the trial level or on appeal. Moreover, while the majority attempts to take judicial notice of them, no such request was ever made by either of the parties, including the defendants. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.