Patterson v. Burge
328 F. Supp. 2d 878 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A § 1983 claim for coercive interrogation and torture that results in a conviction based almost entirely on the resulting confession does not accrue for statute of limitations purposes until the conviction is invalidated. Additionally, police officers and prosecutors who engage in purely investigative misconduct, such as participating in torture or fabricating evidence, are not entitled to absolute immunity.
Facts:
- On April 19, 1986, Rafaela and Vincent Sanchez were found murdered in their Chicago apartment.
- Detectives were informed that other individuals, Willie Washington and his brother, were the likely killers, but they continued to search for Aaron Patterson.
- On April 30, 1986, police arrested Patterson on an unrelated outstanding warrant and transported him to Area 2 headquarters for questioning about the Sanchez murders.
- At Area 2, Detectives Pienta, Marley, and Pedersen handcuffed Patterson, beat him, and repeatedly suffocated him with a plastic typewriter cover until he agreed to confess.
- While left alone, Patterson used a paper clip to scratch a message into an interview room bench stating that he was suffocated with plastic and that his statement was false.
- After Patterson refused to give a statement to an Assistant State's Attorney (ASA), Lt. Jon Burge threatened him with a handgun.
- ASA Peter Troy and Detective Madigan then physically attacked Patterson in an attempt to force him to sign a fabricated confession.
- For years during Patterson's incarceration, officials allegedly suppressed an internal police report (the OPS report) that detailed a pattern and practice of systematic torture of suspects by the defendant officers at Area 2.
Procedural Posture:
- Aaron Patterson was convicted of two counts of murder in an Illinois state trial court and was sentenced to death.
- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
- Patterson's subsequent post-conviction petitions, which argued he was tortured and framed, were denied by the Illinois state courts.
- On January 10, 2003, Illinois Governor George Ryan granted Patterson a pardon on the basis of innocence.
- In June 2003, Patterson filed a civil rights action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against various police officers, prosecutors, and municipal entities.
- The defendants filed motions to dismiss all fourteen counts of Patterson's complaint for failure to state a claim, untimeliness, and on immunity grounds.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do § 1983 claims alleging that police officers and prosecutors violated a defendant's due process rights by torturing him to obtain a fabricated confession and suppressing exculpatory evidence of systemic abuse state a valid cause of action that accrues only upon the invalidation of the conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Gottschall
Yes. Such claims state a valid cause of action for a due process violation and, under the Heck v. Humphrey rule, do not accrue until the conviction is overturned. The court held that Patterson stated a valid due process claim under Brady v. Maryland because the defendants suppressed exculpatory evidence not only of his own torture, but of a systemic pattern of abuse at Area 2, which was material to his defense. This is distinct from a malicious prosecution claim and directly implicates the right to a fair trial. The court also found that the defendants were not entitled to absolute immunity at the motion to dismiss stage; police officers who instigate a prosecution may be considered 'complaining witnesses' exempt from testimonial immunity, and prosecutors who participate in the physical coercion of a suspect are acting in an investigatory, not prosecutorial, capacity. Finally, the court ruled that Patterson’s claims for torture and coerced confession were timely because his conviction rested almost entirely on that confession. Therefore, a successful civil rights claim challenging the confession would have necessarily implied the invalidity of his conviction, tolling the statute of limitations until his pardon in 2003.
Analysis:
This opinion significantly clarifies the application of key legal doctrines in wrongful conviction cases. It solidifies that a pattern and practice of police misconduct can constitute suppressed exculpatory evidence under Brady, broadening the scope of what plaintiffs can use to establish a due process violation. The decision strongly reinforces the 'functional approach' to prosecutorial immunity, denying absolute immunity to prosecutors who cross the line from advocate to investigator by participating in coercive interrogations. Most importantly, its application of Heck v. Humphrey ensures that victims of conviction-causing torture are not time-barred from seeking justice, effectively aligning the accrual of their civil rights claim with the moment they are legally able to pursue it—after their conviction has been nullified.
