Heidelberg v. Manias, Case No. 1:18-cv-01161-SLD-JEH
| Decision Date | 30 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:18-cv-01161-SLD-JEH |
| Citation | 503 F.Supp.3d 758 |
| Parties | Stephen HEIDELBERG, Administrator of the Estate of Cleve Heidelberg, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Emanuel MANIAS; Larry Bernard ; Ronald Hamm; Paul Hibser; Susan I. Brady, Administrator of the Estate of Gerald W. Brady, Jr.; David Wentworth, II, Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth DeCremer; David Wentworth, II, Administrator of the Estate of Paul Hilst; David Wentworth, II, Administrator of the Estate of Bernard Kennedy ; David Wentworth, II, Administrator of the Estate of Nolan Macklin; David Wentworth, II, Administrator of the Estate of John Riddle; David Wentworth, II, Administrator of the Estate of William Schalk ; Robert L. Watson, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of Robert Lee Watson; David Wentworth, II, Administrator of the Estate of Willard Koeppel; David Wentworth, II, Administrator of the Estate of John Sack; Unknown Officers of the Peoria Police Department and The Peoria County Sheriff's Department ; the City of Peoria, Illinois; and the County of Peoria, Illinois, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois |
Andrew MacDonald Hale, Amy A. Hijjawi, Hale & Monico LLC, Chicago, IL, Donald R. Jackson, Hale & Monico LLC, Peoria, IL, for Plaintiff.
James G. Sotos, Jeffrey N. Given, John J. Timbo, Laura M. Ranum, Samantha J. Pallini, Sara J. Schroeder, The Sotos Law Firm, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Defendants Paul Hibser, Larry Bernard, Ronald Hamm, City of Peoria, County of Peoria, Emanuel Manias, David Wentworth, II, Susan I. Brady.
Andrew Joseph Almasi, Attorney at Law, Elmwood, IL, John J. Timbo, Laura M. Ranum, Samantha J. Pallini, The Sotos Law Firm, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Defendant Robert L. Watson, Jr.
Before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Willard Koeppel and Bernard Kennedy (through their Independent Administrator, David Wentworth, II), ECF No. 104; Defendants Robert Lee Watson (through his Independent Administrator Robert L. Watson, Jr.), Paul Hilst, Kenneth DeCremer, Nolan Macklin, William Schalk, and John Sack (through their Independent Administrator David Wentworth, II), Emanuel Manias, Larry Bernard, and Paul Hibser, ECF No. 105; Gerald W. Brady, Jr. (through his administrator Susan I. Brady), John Riddle (through his Independent Administrator David Wentworth, II), and Ronald Hamm, ECF No. 107; and the City of Peoria and the County of Peoria, ECF No. 108, along with Defendants' joint Motion for Leave to File a Reply, ECF No. 120; Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 121; and Motion to Apprise Court of Case Law Development, ECF No. 124. For the following reasons, the motions to dismiss are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, the Motion for Leave to File a Reply is GRANTED, the Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority is GRANTED, and the Motion to Apprise Court of Case Law Development is GRANTED.
Koeppel and Kennedy are sued for their actions as Sheriffs of Peoria County (collectively, "Defendant Sheriffs" or "the Sheriff Defendants"); Manias, Sack, DeCremer, Bernard, Schalk, and Macklin2 for their actions as deputy sheriffs of the Peoria County Sheriff's Office and Hibser, Watson, and Hilst for their actions as police officers with the Peoria Police Department (collectively, "Defendant Officers" or "the Officer Defendants"); Hamm and Riddle for their actions as Assistant State's Attorneys of the Peoria County State's Attorney's Office (collectively, "Prosecutor Defendants" or "Defendant Prosecutors" and along with the Sheriff Defendants and the Officer Defendants, "the 1970 Defendants"); and Brady for his actions as Peoria County State's Attorney. Each of these Defendants is sued in his individual capacity. The City of Peoria is sued as Hibser, Watson, and Hilst's employer and statutory indemnitor, and the County of Peoria is sued as the statutory indemnitor of Manias, Sack, DeCremer, Bernard, Schalk, Macklin,3 Hamm, Riddle, and Brady.
At approximately 1:30 a.m. on May 26, 1970, a black man fled the scene of a botched armed robbery at the Bellevue Drive-In, killing a police officer, Sergeant Raymond Espinoza, and taking a woman, Mayme Manuel, hostage in the process. Police responding to the call were told that an "armed black man wearing a yellow shirt and brown jacket" had absconded with the hostage in a Chevy, and when they spotted a Chevy travelling at a high speed in the area, a car chase commenced. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 33. The driver of the Chevy crashed the car but had escaped on foot by the time the police arrived. Two officers spotted a black man running away from the crash site and gave chase but ultimately lost sight of him.
Thirty minutes later, Cleve Heidelberg, a black man wearing a blue shirt and a gray sports coat, was walking a block away from the crash site on his way to pick up his car, the Chevy. He had loaned it to a man named Lester Mason a few hours previously, and Mason had told him that he had left it in the vicinity. When the police received a call that a black man—who turned out to be Heidelberg—was walking in the area, officers immediately arrested him.
Bernard and Schalk were the first officers on the scene at the Bellevue Drive-In after Sergeant Espinoza was shot. Upon arriving, they found Jerry Lucas, "a purported paid informant who had been riding with Sergeant Espinoza, cradling Espinoza's bleeding head in his arms and lap," along with Maurice Cremeens, an employee of the theater. Id. ¶ 44. They, along with Manuel (who had been found in the Chevy after the crash), were taken to the Peoria County jail to view a lineup, which included Heidelberg. Neither Manuel nor Lucas were able to identify any lineup participant as the perpetrator. Cremeens identified Heidelberg in the first run of the lineup but pointed to a different man in the second run. Manias prepared a written report documenting these results, which the 1970 Defendants ultimately destroyed. None of the officers who had participated in the car chase or the subsequent search viewed the lineup—they had, in fact, told Manias and Hamm that none of them had been able to see the driver of the Chevy sufficiently to identify him. Manias interviewed the officers that night and took notes of the interviews. These notes were never turned over to Heidelberg or to Hamm, the Assistant State's Attorney.
Officers processed the crime scene but did not find Heidelberg's fingerprints anywhere on or in the car. They found the murder weapon in the car, along with a few other items there and at the theater. These items were sent to the FBI for a ballistics and fingerprint examination. The FBI later sent a telegram to the 1970 Defendants, informing them that Heidelberg's prints were not on the murder weapon. Neither this telegram nor a further FBI latent fingerprint report documenting the results of the fingerprint testing done on the items were disclosed to Heidelberg; instead, "Hamm told the court that no such reports existed." Id. ¶ 66. Based on these results and the failed lineup, "the 1970 Defendants knew that they did not have probable cause to arrest Mr. Heidelberg for, much less charge him with, the murder of Sergeant Espinoza." Id. ¶ 67. Despite this, they took action to ensure that he was convicted of the crime.
Manias spied on confidential communications between Heidelberg and his attorney and learned that Heidelberg had loaned his car to Mason, that he had been in a club surrounded by witnesses during the time the crime was committed, and that he had only been in the area where he was arrested to pick up his car. Manias documented what he had learned from eavesdropping in a report, which was never disclosed before or during Heidelberg's trial and post-conviction proceedings. The 1970 Defendants used the information gleaned by Manias to build a case against Heidelberg. Because the 1970 Defendants' actions suggested that they knew the contents of these privileged conversations, Heidelberg came to believe that his attorney was disclosing information to the prosecution and chose to proceed pro se.
To bolster the false case against Heidelberg, Macklin ordered the original lineup report to be destroyed and Manias to prepare a false lineup report which stated that Manuel and Cremeens had identified Heidelberg as the perpetrator in both runs of the lineup. Macklin also asked Lucas to testify that Heidelberg was the culprit; Lucas agreed and was paid for his testimony by Macklin in an amount equal to $2000 today. Manias, Macklin, Hamm, and Riddle met with Lucas and further "instructed him to falsely claim that Manuel and Cremeens whispered their identifications into an officer's ear." Id. ¶ 84. To cover up the fact that Heidelberg, when he was arrested, had been wearing a different outfit than the one the police had been informed over the radio was worn by the perpetrator, the 1970 Defendants suppressed the tapes of the radio transmissions, falsely reporting to Heidelberg that they had been destroyed. They eventually produced the transcript of the tapes to Heidelberg on the eve of his trial. They also agreed to fabricate other pieces of evidence that would indicate that the car driver had actually been wearing a blue shirt and gray sports coat and that it was Lucas who was wearing the yellow shirt and brown jacket. The 1970 Defendants additionally "induce[d Manuel and Cremeens] to agree to testify falsely that Heidelberg was the perpetrator." Id. ¶ 93. None of this information was disclosed to Heidelberg prior to his trial.
Also not disclosed to Heidelberg was the fact that the FBI had interrogated a man named James Clark about the murder while he was in jail awaiting trial on a separate charge. Clark admitted that he had been in Heidelberg's car briefly on the day of the murder. "For nearly fifty years, Mr. Heidelberg resolutely suspected and therefore...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Penate v. Kaczmarek
... ... Plaintiff's case. [ 1 ] Penate alleges that Ballou, Thomas, and ... Irwin, who were ... evidence.” Heidelberg ... evidence.” Heidelberg v. Manias ... ...
- Guajardo v. Skechers USA, Inc.
-
Cusick v. Gualandri
...evidence shows that this date should be adjusted, the parties may raise appropriate arguments at that time. See Heidelberg v. Manias , 503 F. Supp. 3d 758, 780 (C.D. Ill. 2020) (further factual development was needed before deciding if conduct during certain meetings was prosecutorial or in......
-
Brown v. City of Chicago
... ... ¶¶ 2, 6.) When called to the ... station for a particular case, the ASA would evaluate what ... evidence was available, determine ... appearances to obtain search warrants.” Heidelberg ... v. Manias , 503 F.Supp.3d 758, 779-80 (C.D. Ill. 2020) ... ...