Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-City’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s section 1983 action, alleging that City and defendant-police officer withheld material impeachment evidence concerning officer’s drug and racketeering crimes in violation of Brady that led to plaintiff’s conviction and subsequent vacatur of said conviction. While plaintiff argued that City could be liable for actions taken by police officer because it had practice of using paid criminal informants, and because it had failed to supervise officer’s use of said informant that played role in officer’s criminal convictions, fact that City used informants did not constitute violation of any federal right. Also, plaintiff failed to show that City engaged in any deliberate indifference to fact that City’s use of criminal informants would lead to officer’s violation of federal law. However, while jury found in favor of police officer, plaintiff was entitled to new trial, where: (1) Dist. Ct. erred in failing to instruct jury to disregard officer’s claim on witness stand that he would “love to testify” but was invoking his 5th Amendment right due to pending nature of his own criminal charges; and (2) Dist. Ct. failed to properly instruct jury that only time witness can invoke 5th Amendment is when witness has reasonable fear that truthful answers may incriminate him.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Section 1983 Action