Roberts v. Cnty. of Essex

• Decision Date: 30 December 2022
• Docket Number: Civ. 15-7061 (KM) (JBC)
• Parties: RODNEY R. ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF ESSEX, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

RODNEY R. ROBERTS, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF ESSEX, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 15-7061 (KM) (JBC)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

December 30, 2022

OPINION

Kevin McNulty, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Rodney Roberts was arrested in 1996 for the rape and kidnapping of 17-year-old Sheronda Atwell. Shortly after his arrest, Roberts pled guilty to kidnapping in exchange for a seven-year sentence and dismissal of the rape charge. In 2004, after serving this sentence, Roberts was involuntarily committed as a sexually violent predator.

In 2013, DNA analysis was performed on samples from Atwell's 1996 rape kit. The analysis indicated that Roberts did not match the DNA profile of Atwell's assailant. The trial court vacated Roberts's guilty plea in light of these results and the government dismissed the rape and kidnapping charges. Roberts was released from civil confinement in March 2014.

Roberts promptly commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983^[1] with supplemental state law claims against various state actors and entities. Several defendants have since been dismissed from the case. The remaining defendants have filed three motions for summary judgment that are now before the Court.

1

One motion was filed by the Essex County Prosecutor's Office (ECPO) and two of its employees, Assistant Prosecutor Robert Laurino and Investigator Michelle Bolin. I will refer to these defendants collectively as “the ECPO Defendants”. A second motion for summary judgment was filed by Essex County. A third motion for summary judgment was filed by the City of Newark and one of its detectives, Derrick Eutsey. I will refer to Det. Eutsey and Newark together as “the Newark Defendants”.

For the reasons set forth below, the ECPO Defendants' and Newark Defendants' motions for summary judgment (DE 214, 223) are granted in part and denied in part, and the motion of Essex County (DE 219) is denied.^[2]

2

Roberts sues for two essential wrongs: (1) the alleged misrepresentation that the victim had identified him from a photo array; and (2) the failure, in postconviction proceedings, to produce vaginal swabs which did not contain Roberts's DNA. The rulings herein leave intact these essential claims against the persons who are allegedly primarily responsible, while resisting efforts to spread liability to defendants less directly or knowingly involved.

3

I. Background^[3]

A. Investigation of the rape and kidnapping of Sheronda Atwell

In the early morning hours of May 8, 1996, Sheronda Atwell was walking to her aunt's house in Newark, New Jersey when an unknown male grabbed her, dragged her to an empty lot, and raped her. (Newark St. ¶1; Resp. to Newark St. ¶1.) Atwell reported the incident to the Newark police that morning and described her assailant as a 20-year-old black male.^[4] (Newark St. ¶5; Resp. to Newark St. ¶5.) After her interview with police, she was taken to a hospital where a rape kit was collected. (Newark St. ¶6; Resp. to Newark St. ¶6.)

Detective Eutsey was assigned to investigate the crime. (Newark St. ¶9; Resp. to Newark St. ¶9.) As part of his investigation, Eutsey met with Atwell and her mother on May 14, 1996. (Newark St. ¶10; Resp. to Newark St. ¶10.) The parties agree that Atwell told Eutsey at this meeting that she did not know her assailant. (Newark St. ¶11; Resp. to Newark St. ¶11.) What happened next, however, is largely disputed. According to the report Eutsey drafted detailing his investigation, Eutsey asked Atwell to review suspect files that contained photographs of black males. (Newark St. ¶12; Resp. to Newark St. ¶12.) The report states that Atwell began to cry upon viewing one of the photographs and that she told Eutsey that this was the person who assaulted her. (Id.) The person in the photograph was Roberts, who at the time was 29 years old. (Newark St. ¶13; Resp. to Newark St. ¶13.) Eutsey determined that Roberts had

4

been convicted of aggravated sexual assault in 1986 but had been released on parole in 1993. (Newark St. ¶¶14, 21; Resp. to Newark St. ¶¶13.)

Eutsey's report contains a signed statement from Atwell asserting that she was able to identify her assailant by viewing a photograph of him and that, after making this identification, she signed and dated a copy of the photograph. (Newark St. ¶¶15-19; Resp. to Newark St. ¶¶15-19.) Atwell's signatures on the statement were “sworn to and subscribed” before another officer, Acting Lieutenant Daly. (Id.) On a later date, Eutsey executed a “Property and Evidence Receipt” for the copy of the photograph of Roberts that Atwell purportedly signed, and Lieutenant Daly signed this receipt. (Newark St. ¶26; Resp. to Newark St. ¶26.)

On May 16, 1996, Eutsey submitted Atwell's statement to a prosecutor. (Newark St. ¶22; Resp. to Newark St. ¶22.) Eutsey then appeared before a judge of the Newark Municipal Court, and the judge issued two warrants for Roberts's arrest: one for aggravated assault, and one for kidnapping. (Newark St. ¶23; Resp. to Newark St. ¶23.) According to Eutsey's investigation report, on May 23, 1996, he went to the address listed in Roberts's parole records and determined that the address was “fictitious.” (Newark St. ¶24; Resp. to Newark St. ¶24.) The report states that Eutsey then issued an alert to police agencies notifying them that Roberts was wanted pursuant to a warrant. (Newark St. ¶25; Resp. to Newark St. ¶25.)

Eutsey executed another “Property and Evidence Receipt” for Atwell's rape kit, and the receipt indicates that it was received by the Newark Forensic Lab (“Newark Lab”) on May 29, 1996. (Newark St. ¶27; Resp. to Newark St. ¶27; Ex. E to DE 223.) Joseph Groller, a chemist at the Newark Lab, examined Atwell's rape kit on that date. (Newark St. ¶29; Resp. to Newark St. ¶29.) Among other things, Groller examined the vaginal swabs microscopically and noted the presence of sperm. (Newark St. ¶30; Resp. to Newark St. ¶30.) Groller then requested blood and saliva samples from a suspect for the purpose of comparison. (Newark St. ¶32; Resp. to Newark St. ¶32.)

After examining the Atwell rape kit, Groller cut the tips off of the vaginal

5

swabs and placed them in a brown envelope. (Newark St. ¶33; Resp. to Newark St. ¶33.) Groller repackaged the brown envelope into a larger white envelope that he labeled with the name of the victim and other identifying information, and he placed the white envelope into one of the refrigerators in the Newark Lab. (Newark St. ¶¶34-36; Resp. to Newark St. ¶¶34-36.) Groller believed that the rest of the rape kit was returned to the Newark Police Department's property room. (Newark St. ¶37; Resp. to Newark St. ¶37.)

B. Arrest and conviction of Rodney Roberts

On May 25, 1996, Roberts was arrested in East Orange, New Jersey on a theft charge unrelated to the Atwell case. (Newark St. ¶41; Resp. to Newark St. ¶41.) On June 12, Roberts pled guilty to third-degree theft, which resulted in a violation of his parole from his 1986 conviction. (Newark St. ¶¶41-42; Resp. to Newark St. ¶¶41-42.) Roberts was not released on bail pending sentencing on the theft charge because of the pending rape and kidnapping charges in the Atwell case. (Id.)

On June 26, 1996, Roberts was arraigned on and pled not guilty to charges of aggravated sexual assault and kidnapping. (Newark St. ¶42; Resp. to Newark St. ¶42.) Three weeks later, while at the courthouse for a proceeding, Roberts met with his assigned public defender, Charles Martone, who informed Roberts of a plea offer by the prosecution: In exchange for a guilty plea to second-degree kidnapping, the prosecution would dismiss the first-degree aggravated sexual assault charge and recommend that Roberts be sentenced to a term of seven years. (Newark St. ¶¶44-45; Resp. to Newark St. ¶¶44-45.) That seven-year sentence would run concurrently with the two three-year terms that Roberts was then facing for theft and violating the terms of his parole. (Id.)

According to Roberts, he told Martone that he was innocent of the Atwell charges and that he would not accept the prosecutor's offer. (Newark St. ¶46; Resp. to Newark St. ¶46.) Martone then left the holding cell area where the two had been conversing and returned approximately 20-25 minutes later with new information. (Id.) Martone informed Roberts that he had met Atwell, who was at the courthouse, and that she told him that she had positively identified Roberts

6

as her assailant and was prepared to do so again in open court that day. (Id.) Martone advised Roberts that his independent investigation confirmed Atwell's identity as the victim and the accuracy of the police reports in the case. (Id.) Roberts subsequently accepted the plea agreement and was convicted of kidnapping. (Newark St. ¶47; Resp. to Newark St. ¶47.) He was sentenced by Judge Eugene Codey to seven years on the kidnapping conviction, to run concurrently with his three-year sentence(s) for the theft conviction and the related parole violation. (Newark St. ¶49; Resp. to Newark St. ¶49.)

C. Parole denials and civil confinement

In April 1998, and again in May 2000, Roberts appeared before the New Jersey State Parole Board for parole release hearings. Both times, Roberts was denied parole based upon the allegation that he raped Atwell. (Newark St. ¶¶52-53; Resp. to Newark St. ¶¶52-53.) Roberts appealed the May 2000 decision, which was affirmed on the ground that the Board was entitled to rely on the charged sexual assault. (Id.)

In January 2001, Roberts filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea in the Atwell case due to ineffective assistance of counsel. (Newark St. ¶54; Resp. to Newark St. ¶54.) Judge Codey denied the motion. (Id.) In June 2003, Roberts was again denied parole and appealed. The denial was affirmed on the basis that Roberts would not accept responsibility for the Atwell rape and that he thus “minimized [his] conduct.” (Newark St. ¶55; Resp. to Newark St...