Johnson v. Balt. Police Dep't
| Decision Date | 10 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. ELH-19-00698 |
| Parties | JEROME L. JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
This civil rights case is rooted in the 1989 conviction of Jerome Johnson for the murder of Aaron Taylor in 1988. Mr. Johnson, who was convicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, was sentenced to life imprisonment, plus a consecutive term of 20 years for a related crime. The Conviction Integrity Unit of the Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office eventually conducted an investigation and concluded that Mr. Johnson was innocent. In 2018, after Mr. Johnson spent nearly three decades in prison, his convictions were vacated. This suit followed.
Mr. Johnson has sued the Baltimore City Police Department ("BPD" or the "Department") and four BPD detectives in their individual capacities: Frank Barlow, Daniel Boone, Kevin Davis, and Gerald Goldstein (the "Officer Defendants"). ECF 1 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint contains eleven counts. Counts I through VI are filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, while Counts VII through XI assert claims under Maryland law. Count I, titled "Failure to Disclose Exculpatory and Impeachment Evidence," is lodged against the Officer Defendants, and asserts a violation of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. ECF 1, ¶¶ 182-87. Count II asserts a claim of "Fabrication of Evidence" against the Officer Defendants, in violation of due process. Id. ¶¶ 188-92. Count III alleges a claim of "Malicious Prosecution" against the Officer Defendants under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. ¶¶ 193-97. Count IV asserts a claim for "Failure to Intervene" against the Officer Defendants. Id. ¶¶ 198-201. Count V alleges that the Officer Defendants conspired to deprive Johnson of his constitutional rights. Id. ¶¶ 202-08. In Count VI, plaintiff lodges a "Monell" claim against the BPD, pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. ¶¶ 209-16; see Monell v. City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
Count VII asserts a claim against the Officer Defendants for "Malicious Prosecution." ECF 1, ¶¶ 253-60.1 Count VIII, filed against the Officer Defendants, alleges "Abuse of Process." Id. ¶¶ 261-65. In Count IX, plaintiff asserts a claim against the Officer Defendants for "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress." Id. ¶¶ 266-68. In Count X, plaintiff asserts a claim against the Officer Defendants for "Civil Conspiracy." Id. ¶¶ 269-73. And, Count XI seeks "Indemnification" from the BPD. Id. ¶¶ 274-76.
Three motions to dismiss are pending. Detective Kevin Davis filed a motion to dismiss (ECF 22) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), with respect to Counts I, II, III, V, VIII, IX, and X. The motion is supported by a memorandum. ECF 22-1 (collectively, the "Davis Motion"). The BPD has moved to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) (ECF 24), supported by a memorandum. ECF 24-1 (collectively, the "BPD Motion"). And, Detectives Barlow, Boone, and Goldstein have moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (ECF 25), supported by a memorandum. ECF 25-1 (collectively, the "Officers Motion"). Plaintiff filed a consolidated opposition to the Davis Motion and the Officers Motion (ECF 28), and also opposes the BPD Motion. ECF 29. Defendants have replied. ECF 30 (BPD); ECF 32 (Officers); ECF 34 (Davis).
The motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve them. See Local Rule 105(6). For the reasons that follow, I shall deny the BPD Motion, and I shall grant in part and deny in part the Davis Motion and the Officers Motion.
Just after 1:00 a.m. on July 14, 1988, four men approached Aaron Taylor on a basketball court in northwest Baltimore. ECF 1, ¶ 23. The men argued, and Mr. Taylor fled to the nearby Nite Owl Tavern. Id. One of the four men, Alvin Hill, pursued Mr. Taylor into the bar. Id. When Mr. Hill pulled a gun from his waistband, Mr. Taylor tried to use a bar patron as a shield, but the patron broke free. Id. ¶ 24. Mr. Hill shot Mr. Taylor, killing him. Id.
At the time of the shooting, Officer Steve Owens and another BPD officer were nearby, in an unmarked car. Id. ¶ 28. After the shots rang out, Officer Owens exited the car and chased two of the men involved in the shooting down an alley. Id. When Officer Owens emerged from the alley, he saw Mr. Johnson standing at the corner of Reisterstown Road and Lucille Avenue with his childhood friend, Alvin Morgan. Id. ¶ 26. Officer Owens knew Mr. Johnson; they had attended high school together. Id. ¶ 29. Officer Owens and Mr. Johnson talked, and Mr. Johnson told Office Owens that he had heard multiple gunshots. Id. Following the conversation, Mr. Johnson went to Mr. Morgan's grandmother's home on Lucille Avenue. Id. ¶ 30.
The BPD responded to the Nite Owl Tavern shortly after the shooting. Id. ¶ 31. Officer Kenneth Jones was one of the first officers to arrive at the crime scene. Id. ¶ 32. Detective Davis, the lead investigator, arrived shortly thereafter. Id. ¶ 34; see id. ¶ 50. Officer Jones and Detective Davis located several witnesses, including the owner of the Nite Owl Tavern and the patron who had been used as a human shield. Id. ¶ 35. They also located a 15-year-old female, L.S., who was Mr. Taylor's cousin. Id. ¶ 36.3 Shortly before the shooting, L.S. had been at her home with Mr. Taylor, her friend, T.L.; and a family friend, Quinton. At some point, Mr. Taylor left on his bicycle to go to the Nite Owl Tavern. Id. ¶ 37. A few minutes later, L.S., T.L., and Quinton walked to the bar and were in the vicinity at the time of the murder. Id.
Officer Jones and Detective Davis interviewed L.S. at approximately 1:50 a.m. on July 14, 1988, about thirty minutes after the murder. Id. ¶ 36. Officer Jones documented the interview in a report (the "July 14 Report"). Id. ¶ 38. According to the July 14 Report, L.S. stated that the suspect "'came into the bar, pulled a black + brown gun (unknown caliber) from his waist band, and held it down towards the floor.'" Id. ¶ 39. L.S. recounted that she saw Mr. Taylor try to hide behind a patron, but the patron escaped. Id. ¶¶ 40-41. At that point, the shooter said twice that he was going to kill Mr. Taylor. Id. ¶ 41. L.S. said that she then ran from the bar and heard five shots as she was running away. Id. ¶ 42. The July 14 Report stated that L.S. told Officer Jones that the shooter was accompanied by three men, all of whom fled after the shooting. Id. ¶ 43. During the interview, L.S. allegedly provided Officer Jones and Detective Davis with a description of the shooter that matched Mr. Hill. Id. ¶¶ 44, 47. Although L.S. knew Mr. Johnson from theneighborhood, she did not mention him. Id. ¶ 49. Officer Jones and Detective Davis both signed the July 14 Report. Id. ¶¶ 45, 46.
According to plaintiff, the July 14 Report was known not only to Officer Jones and Detective Davis, but also to Detectives Barlow, Boone, and Goldstein, all of whom were members of BPD's Homicide Unit. Id. ¶ 51. However, the July 14 Report was allegedly never disclosed to the State's Attorney's Office or to Mr. Johnson. Id. ¶¶ 48, 52. Plaintiff claims that Detectives Davis, Barlow, Boone, and Goldstein decided that Mr. Johnson participated in Mr. Taylor's murder and concocted a story that Mr. Johnson was part of the group that confronted Mr. Taylor and handed Mr. Hill the gun used to murder Mr. Taylor. Id. ¶ 54.
On July 19, 1988, Detectives Davis and Barlow interviewed L.S. and her mother at the Violent Crime Section of the State's Attorney's Office. Id. ¶ 56. The interview was memorialized in a report prepared by Detective Davis (the "July 19 Report"). During the interview, L.S. made several statements that contradicted what she told the police the week prior. Id. ¶ 58. L.S. stated that she saw Mr. Johnson give the shooter a small handgun while they were standing outside the bar. Id. ¶ 59. L.S. also said that the shooter pointed the gun at the victim, but it twice misfired. Id. Further she told the detectives that she "ran into the store right behind the victim and then fled after the first shot—hearing three more [shots] as she ran away." Id. ¶ 60.
Three portions of the July 19 Report are covered over with white out. Id. ¶ 61. The first two white-outs concern the number of suspects involved in the murder. In place of whatever number was typed in the July 19 Report, the number "5" was inserted by hand. Id. ¶ 62. The third white-out refers to the number of suspects who accompanied the shooter; the number "4" was inserted by hand. Id. ¶ 63.
In addition to the July 19 Report, Detective Davis took handwritten notes of the interview with L.S. Id. ¶ 64. The notes allegedly reflect that L.S. was inside the bar when four shots were fired. Id. ¶ 66. But, the July 19 Report reflects that L.S. fled after the first shot. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that Detectives Davis and Barlow "pressured" L.S. to "falsely add[] Mr. Johnson to her account of who was involved in the murder of her cousin." Id. ¶ 69. And, plaintiff alleges that Detectives Davis and Barlow "purposefully altered the number of suspects in the July 19 Report to allow the addition of Mr. Johnson as one of the suspects." Id. ¶ 70. Further, plaintiff alleges that the Officer Defendants never provided the July 19 Report or Detective Davis's notes to the prosecutor or to Mr. Johnson. Id. ¶ 75.
A grand jury convened in July 1988 to decide charges in Mr. Taylor's murder. Id. ¶ 79. The Officer Defendants presented L.S. to the grand jury on July 28, 1988, where she testified to the version of events recounted in the July 19 Report. Id. ¶ 80. Detectives Davis, Barlow, and Boone also allegedly testified before the grand jury. Id. ¶ 81.
The Officer Defendants prepared "Prosecution Reports" to convey evidence to the prosecutor. Id. ¶ 93. They also completed an Application for Statement of...
To continue reading
Request your trial