Amended complaint filed in Walker v. White - wrongful conviction suit filed on behalf of Jermaine Walker in Illinois federal court.
No. 10126), SEBASTIAN FLATLEY (Star No. 13734), BRIAN DALY (Star No.
for a crime he did not commit.
that took ten years to unravel.
States Constitution and under state law.
events giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred within this district.
Office acting under color of law and within the scope of his employment.
Defendant Finnelly is sued in his individual capacity.
Chicago is liable for their torts under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
relevant to this Complaint officers serving in the Chicago Police Department.
They are sued in their individual capacities.
superconductivity, all on a full scholarship.
At about 8:30 pm, the brothers were parked in the parking lot of J.J.
purchase before going to their sister's home.
justified being stopped by the police.
The Defendant Officers followed Mr. Walker's car into the alley.
requested his driver's license, insurance, and registration.
but Reyes refused to give him any explanation.
the officers could search it.
that he exit his car and submit to an illegal search of his car.
Knowing that the Defendants had no grounds to search the car, Mr.
violated, Mr. Walker asked to speak to a sergeant.
Defendant Sergeant White arrived at the scene shortly thereafter.
had not given him any justification for the stop.
Rather than discipline his subordinate officers, or articulate to Mr.
out of his car without justification.
began screaming at him. Fearing what the Defendant Officers might do, Mr.
why he was being ordered out of his car.
described above transpired. The camera was in plain sight to everyone present.
the adjacent Lawrence House, was part of Lawrence House's security system.
narcotics within 1,000 feet of a school.
against Mr. Walker at trial.
witnesses of his own, he could not corroborate his account.
an investigator for the Office.
the location where Plaintiff's car had been stopped below the camera.
from appearing in all nine of his photographs of the alley.
camera would not appear in the photograph.
facing south, so that the telephone poles in the alley would hide the camera.
photographs of the alley in deciding to and continuing to prosecute Mr. Walker.
trial while imprisoned in Cook County Jail. Knowing he was innocent, Mr.
witnesses who could testify that the camera was there on February 21, 2006. Mr.
front of a camera that might be recording the transaction.
Finnelly's manipulated photographs to stand unrebutted.
of the alley, but denied having seen any camera there.
Their testimony was also false.
close-ups that show you there is no camera.
drugs? This is the most baffling of all.
convicted and sentenced to 22 years imprisonment.
sending the case back to appoint an investigator would achieve nothing.
the Defendants lied under oath.
Flatley, and Reyes had perjured themselves.
conviction and sentence, and to dismiss the charges against him.
that testified and presented evidence corroborating their testimony.
there is a presumption that they are going to tell the truth.
disheartening to find out that someone has done something like this.
so long for it to come out.
know, does not ever happen again.
could come to the just outcome and that you could be released.
So at this time, the defendant's conviction will be vacated.
unable to share holidays, births, funerals, and other life events with loved ones.
freedom to live one's life as an autonomous human being.
thoughts of suicide, and physical sickness and injury.
Moreover, at the time of his conviction and incarceration, Mr.
Walker was a college student on a full scholarship, studying computer science.
income from a career in information technology.
willful indifference to Plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights.
liberty, physical sickness and injury, and emotional distress.
material exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
officers, such that its failure to do so manifests deliberate indifference.
abuses such as those that affected Plaintiff.
officer accountability for the use of force.
monitor, punish and prevent police misconduct and brutality.
Superintendent Hillard, and the Chicago Police Board.
control its police officers, nothing was done to remedy these problems.
and to recommend discipline in a disproportionately small number of cases.
Chicago sides with the police officer and concludes that no violation occurred.
police officers had committed civil rights violations in 2005.
multiple entities that have been responsible for investigating police misconduct.
complaints excessive force by police officers, or 2%.
investigations that were closed during the annual cycle).
actual circumstances of the shooting.
nature of many misconduct claims.
has not enacted any substantive measures to address that deficiency.
track repeat offenders, districts, or units.
discipline, the Police Superintendent often overrides that recommendation.
District Commander until he was criminally indicted in August 2014.
accused of violating citizens' civil rights.
abuse and corruption have never been adequate.
deprivation of Mr. Walker's constitutional rights, but failed to do so.
exculpatory and impeachment information to prosecutors.
not have been pursued, and Plaintiff would not have been convicted.
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
various paragraphs of this Complaint.
of his constitutional rights in this way.
accomplish an unlawful purpose by unlawful means.
and was an otherwise willful participant in joint activity.
sickness, and emotional pain and suffering, as is more fully alleged above.
material exculpatory and impeachment evidence, as described in paragraphs 84105 of this Complaint.
criminal prosecution against Mr. Walker.
that Mr. Walker had committed the crime.
favor when the indictment against him was dismissed.
pain and suffering, as is more fully alleged above.
indictment against him was dismissed on March 25, 2016.
suffering, as is more fully alleged above.
including by conspiring to deprive Mr. Walker of his constitutional rights.
scheme of acting in an unlawful manner toward Plaintiff.
including but not limited to physical sickness and injury and emotional distress.
Officers and Investigators engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct.
that their conduct would cause severe emotional distress.
with malice and reckless indifference to the rights of others.
capacity as Cook County State's Attorney, are liable for their actions.
injuries including but not limited to severe emotional distress.
Office is funded by Defendant Cook County.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.