IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION

Transcription

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION DONNY MCGEE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO POLICE ) DETECTIVE FARLEY, CHICAGO POLICE ) DETECTIVE LENIHAN, and CHICAGO POLICE ) OFFICER BARTIK, ) ) Defendants. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT NOW COMES Plaintiff, DONNY MCGEE, by his attorneys, LOEVY & LOEVY, and complaining of Defendants, CITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO POLICE DETECTIVE FARLEY, CHICAGO POLICE DETECTIVE LENIHAN, and CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER BARTIK (collectively, "Defendant Officers ), states as follows: Introduction 1. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Officers claimed that he confessed to committing a gruesome murder. Based solely on that fabricated confession, Plaintiff was forced to spend three years wrongfully incarcerated before he was exonerated, despite the fact that DNA evidence has confirmed what Plaintiff has alleged all along - that he was totally innocent of the charged crime and, therefore, never did confess to the

2 Defendants. Jurisdiction and Venue 2. Jurisdiction and venue properly lie in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois because the alleged events occurred therein. Factual Allegations 3. Plaintiff Donny McGee is a graduate of St. Laurence High School in Burbank, Illinois. At the time of his false arrest, Mr. McGee lived in Chicago, was engaged to be married, and was working as a property manager. 4. On or about April 3, 2001, Mr. McGee s elderly neighbor, Ethel Perstlen, was found dead in her home. Ms. Perstlen had been stabbed to death and burned in a most gruesome fashion. 5. The Chicago Police Department was under a great deal of public pressure to solve this high profile crime. After three weeks passed without any charges being filed, the Defendant Officers began searching for someone to blame for the crime regardless of guilt or innocence. 6. On April 24, 2004, Defendant Detectives Farley and Lenihan showed up at Mr. McGee s house. Mr. McGee invited the Detectives into the house and answered their questions about his 2

3 whereabouts during the time that Ms. Perstlen was killed, explaining that he had no knowledge of the crime outside of what he had learned from the media. 7. The Detectives asked Mr. McGee to take a lie detector test. Mr. McGee told the Detectives that he would take a lie detector test, but explained that he was to be married during the upcoming weekend and was extremely busy. He stated that he would take a lie detector test after the wedding. 8. While the Detectives were considering Mr. McGee s offer, his mother came to the house. The Detectives left almost immediately thereafter, without mentioning the lie detector test in the presence of his mother. 9. Two days later, and three days before McGee was to be married, two police officers arrived at his house and unlawfully entered without permission or a warrant, telling Mr. McGee he was being arrested for a misdemeanor charge unrelated to the events that were to unfold. 10. The Officers handcuffed Mr. McGee and transported him to the local police station. While he was being processed, he was told that all arrestees were being transferred to the Area 1 Violent Crimes Division, but Mr. McGee was the only arrestee who was in fact transferred to Area 1 from that station. 11. At Area 1, Mr. McGee was placed in a room, where 3

4 he sat alone for approximately 40 minutes. Detective Farley entered the room and stated, now I have you, or words to that effect. 12. Detective Farley proceeded to ask him the same questions that he asked on April 24. Mr. McGee again explained that he had nothing to do with the murder of Ms. Perstlen. 13. Mr. McGee twice asked to make a phone call, but Detective Farley refused each time, telling him that he had no right to a phone call. Mr. McGee also asked to talk to an attorney, which Farley also refused. 14. Detectives Farley and Lenihan interrogated Mr. McGee for several hours, going over the same information. Mr. McGee, who had been cooperating throughout the interrogation, finally had enough. He told the Detectives that he did not want to answer any more questions and again asked for the opportunity to talk to a lawyer, which was denied. 15. Detective Farley responded by swearing at him, telling Mr. McGee that if he did not agree to take a lie detector test, they would hold him for 72 hours, knowing that this would cause him to miss his own wedding. 16. Faced with the prospect of missing his own wedding, Mr. McGee submitted to the Detectives demands. 4

5 Thereafter, Mr. McGee was transferred to yet another police station and placed in another interrogation room. 17. Defendant Officer Bartik entered the room to administer the lie detector test. Before he began the test, however, he questioned Mr. McGee about the same topics previously covered by Detectives Farley and Lenihan. Mr. McGee again denied all of the accusations against him and stated that he wanted to talk to a lawyer. 18. Detective Farley then entered the room and interrupted the proceedings, stating that Mr. McGee would have to finish the test later. 19. At that point, Officer Bartik left the room for approximately five to ten minutes to talk to Detective Farley, leaving Mr. McGee alone in the room. 20. After talking to Officer Bartik, Detectives Farley and Lenihan returned him to Area 1, where he met with an Assistant State s Attorney in a room with Detectives Farley and Lenihan. The ASA read him his rights and Mr. McGee invoked his right to remain silent. The ASA stopped all questions and told Mr. McGee that the Detectives would not question him further. 21. Almost immediately after the ASA left, Detective Farley stated, fuck him, I ll stop questioning when I feel like it, or words to that effect, and he and Lenihan began 5

6 interrogating Mr. McGee anew. 22. At one point, Detective Farley left the room and returned with gruesome pictures of the crime scene, stating that they would jog his memory. 23. After hours of exhaustive questioning, Mr. McGee was then transported back to the local police station, where he learned, for the first time, that the Defendant Officers had fabricated a chilling tale: they were now falsely contending that Mr. McGee had confessed to killing his neighbor during his interrogation by Officer Bartik. Furthermore, the Defendant Officers were alleging that Mr. McGee voluntarily confessed a second time, again in the same room in which he was interrogated by Officer Bartik, but this time in front of all three officers. 24. Mr. McGee was falsely charged with murder solely on the basis of the Defendants fabricated account of his confession. At no point whatsoever did Mr. McGee confess to the crime in any respect. He never signed a statement confessing to the crime. His alleged confession was not preserved on audio or videotape. 25. In fact, the only evidence of his purported confession came from the Officers themselves. Furthermore, although fingerprints, blood, and other physical evidence were found at the scene, none of it was linked to Mr. McGee because of 6

7 the simple truth that he had nothing to do with this crime. 26. Specifically, DNA testing has confirmed that blood from two persons was discovered in a bloodstain on the victim s telephone. Mr. McGee was definitively excluded as having contributed any DNA to the bloodstain. 27. Because Mr. McGee s purported confession stated that he acted alone in committing the murder, the DNA evidence established that Mr. McGee could not have killed Ethel Perstlen. 28. Mr. McGee was incarcerated for over three years awaiting trial on the false charges. Unsurprisingly, he was acquitted by a jury after less than 40 minutes of deliberation. 29. Unbeknownst to Mr. McGee, however, he was not the only person who had been victimized by Defendant Bartik in the same exact way. 30. In fact, Defendant Bartik has made a practice of falsely claiming that other persons orally confessed to him: a. Defendant Bartik claimed that Dany Lanza orally confessed to him about committing a criminal sexual assault, despite the fact that Mr. Lanza does not speak English and despite the fact that another man committed the crime to which Bartik claimed Lanza confessed. 7

8 b. Defendant Bartik also falsely claimed that John Fulton orally confessed to him, but did not tell the prosecutor or the investigating detectives about this supposed confession until within a week before trial. c. Defendant Bartik falsely claimed that Lamar Blount orally confessed to murder. Despite that alleged confession, Mr. Blount was cleared of all charges. d. Defendant Bartik falsely claimed that Rory Cook orally confessed to him about committing a murder. 31. Mr. McGee suffered immensely during these three years. He missed the birth of his son, who was born while he was incarcerated. He missed the wedding that he and his fiancé had spent the last eighteen months planning and saving for. During his wrongful incarceration, Mr. McGee lost between twenty and thirty pounds and was forced to live in constant fear, all because of the Defendant Officers lies. 32. Mr. McGee, now married to his fiancé despite the Defendants attempts to falsely imprison him, brings this suit to redress the injuries caused by the Defendants misconduct. Count I 8

9 False Imprisonment 33. Each of the foregoing Paragraphs is incorporated as if restated fully herein. 34. Plaintiff was detained despite the Defendant Officers knowledge that there was no lawful justification for doing so. 35. In the manner described more fully above, the Defendant Officers unlawfully and unreasonably imprisoned Plaintiff without justification. 36. As a result of this misconduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including but not limited to emotional distress. 37. The Defendant Officers actions set forth above were undertaken intentionally, with malice and reckless indifference to Plaintiff s rights. 38. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment such that their employer, CITY OF CHICAGO, is liable for their actions. COUNT II Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 9

10 39. Each of the foregoing Paragraphs is incorporated as if restated fully herein. 40. As described more fully in the preceding paragraphs, by attempting to frame Plaintiff for a murder he did not commit, the Defendant Officers engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct by detaining an innocent man. 41. The misconduct described in this Count was rooted in an abuse of power or authority. 42. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with intent or knowledge that there was a high probability that the conduct would inflict severe emotional distress and with reckless disregard of that probability. 43. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others. 44. As a proximate result of this misconduct, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress and anguish. 45. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment such that their employer, CITY OF CHICAGO, is liable for their actions. Count III 10

11 Malicious Prosecution 46. Each of the foregoing Paragraphs is incorporated as if restated fully herein. 47. In the manner described more fully above, Plaintiff was improperly subjected to judicial proceedings for which there was no probable cause. These judicial proceedings were instituted and continued maliciously, resulting in injury, and all such proceedings were terminated in Plaintiff s favor in a manner indicative of innocence. 48. Specifically, the Defendant Officers reported to prosecutors that Plaintiff had confessed to a murder knowing those accusations to be false and with the intent of exerting influence to institute and continue judicial proceedings. 49. The Defendant Officers made statements regarding Plaintiff s alleged culpability knowing that the statements were false and perjured. In so doing, the Defendant Officers fabricated evidence and withheld exculpatory information. 50. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others. 51. As a proximate result of this misconduct, Plaintiff suffered injuries, including but not limited to emotional distress. 11

12 52. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by the Defendant Officers within the scope of their employment such that their employer, CITY OF CHICAGO, is liable for their actions. COUNT IV -- State Law Claim Respondeat Superior 53. Each of the foregoing Paragraphs is incorporated as if restated fully herein. 54. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, the Defendant Officers were members of, and agents of, the Chicago Police Department acting at all relevant times within the scope of their employment. 55. Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO is liable as principal for all torts committed by its agents. COUNT V -- State Law Claim Indemnification 56. Each of the foregoing Paragraphs is incorporated as if restated fully herein. 57. Illinois law provides that public entities are directed to pay any tort judgment for compensatory damages for which employees are liable within the scope of their employment activities. 58. The Defendant Officers are or were employees of 12

13 the Chicago Police Department, who acted within the scope of their employment in committing the misconduct described herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DONNY MCGEE, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants, CITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO POLICE DETECTIVE FARLEY, CHICAGO POLICE DETECTIVE LENIHAN, and CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER BARTIK, awarding compensatory damages and attorneys fees, as well as punitive damages against the Defendant Officers in their individual capacities, and any other relief this Court deems just and appropriate. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff DONNY MCGEE hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Attorneys for Plaintiff Arthur Loevy Jon Loevy 13

14 Russell Ainsworth Amanda Antholt LOEVY & LOEVY 312 North May Suite 100 Chicago, IL (312) Attorney No