Patrick v. Chicago et al

Filing 405

MOTION by Defendants Rick Abreu, Michael Berti, City of Chicago, Sean Glinski, Thomas Johnson, Terry O'Connor, Anthony Villardita for judgment , MOTION by Defendants Rick Abreu, Michael Berti, City of Chicago, Sean Glinski, Thomas Johnso n, Terry O'Connor, Anthony Villarditajudgment and other relief , MOTION by Defendants Rick Abreu, Michael Berti, City of Chicago, Sean Glinski, Thomas Johnson, Terry O'Connor, Anthony Villardita to set aside judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Scahill, Timothy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DEON PATRICK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 14 C 3658
Honorable Ronald A. Guzman

PLAINTIFF PATRICK’S AMENDED RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT THOMAS JOHNSON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, Plaintiff Deon Patrick, through
undersigned counsel, hereby responds to the First Set of Interrogatories of Defendant Thomas
Johnson (“Johnson”). Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement his interrogatory responses.
RESPONSES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Describe in detail any and all communications of any type you have had with any Assistant
State's Attorney(s) or any Assistant Illinois Attorney General(s) or any one affiliated with the
Assistant State Attorney(s) or Illinois Attorney General Office relating in any way to the
murders of Jeffrey Lassiter and Sharon Haugabook as alleged in your Complaint. In so
doing, identify any such Assistant State's Attorney or Assistant Illinois Attorney General(s)
(by name, description, etc.), identify the date, time, and place of any such communication,
and provide a comprehensive description of everything said to you and everything said by
you during such communications.
ANSWER:

Defendant Magats on December 3 or 4, 1992, or both, at Area 6

interrogation room, at Belmont and Western. Magats came in with a court reporter, and I
said, “I didn’t do it; are you going to make me confess to something I didn’t do?” Mr.
Magats immediately escorted the court reporter out of the room and left. I was then
interrogated by police officers and Mr. Magats for numerous additional hours, and only

1

after my will was broken and promises were made to me did I agree to sign a confession. I
did not initial the statement.
James Papa on November 19, 2013. It took place in an interview room near the
grand jury area at 26th and California. I believe that Papa was the only ASA present, but
there was a State’s Attorney investigator present; I do not remember his name. Mr. Papa
asked me a series of questions about my whereabouts on the day and night of the murder,
how I found about the fact that Daniel Taylor was in lockup on the night of the murder,
and other miscellaneous questions about people I knew or did not know.

I do not

remember the details of this conversation.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
If it is your position that you were not present at the time that Jeffrey Lassister and Sharon
Haugabook were shot and killed at 910 W. Agatite, Chicago, Illinois on November 16, 1992, then
please state with specificity every fact and identify every witness on whose testimony you may rely
to support your position that you were not present when Jeffrey Lassister and Sharon Haugabook
were shot and killed.
ANSWER:

Yes. The remainder the answer is found in interrogatory response #20

to Mr. Villardita’s interrogatories.

In addition to the individuals identified in that

response, additional individuals with knowledge include: Officers Berti, Glinski, Scheiber,
Garrity, Cox, and Nowakowski.

2

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Describe with specificity any and all physical and/or verbal contact you had with any Defendant
Officer on and after December 3, 1992.
ANSWER:

Abreu attached me to the wall of an interrogation room.

Abreu

kicked the chair away from the ring to which I was handcuffed so I could not sit down.
While I was in that room, I was always handcuffed to the ring on the wall.

Abreu (who

played bad cop) interrogated me. O’Connor (who played good cop) interrogated me.
Villardita also entered the interrogation room several times, trying to convince me not to
allow the other guys to put it off on me. He showed me statements of Akia Philips and
Lewis Gardner who were later indicted with me. I believe but am not certain that I also
saw Paul Philips’ statement. I also had contact with officers when they brought Taylor into
the room. I believe it was Abreu and O’Connor who did that, but I am not positive.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Is it your contention that one or more of the Defendant Officers used unreasonable force against
you at any time between December 2, 1992 and December 4, 1992. If so, describe each and
every action taken by each such Defendant officer that you claim comprised the use of
unreasonable force, the particular injury suffered by you, if any, as a result of each such action
by each such Officer, when and where the injury was inflicted, any witnesses who saw
unreasonable force being used against you by any Defendant Officer and any witnesses who
may have seen the injuries inflicted upon you by any Defendant Officer. This answer should
include, but should not be limited to, specifically identifying which of the Defendant
Officers "hit Plaintiff with a flashlight and punched him on his body, all while Plaintiff was
handcuffed to the wall and defenseless" as alleged in Paragraph 29 of your Complaint and the
injuries that were inflicted upon you as a result.
ANSWER:

The sole unreasonable force that was used against me on these dates was

handcuffing to a ring on a wall in the interrogation room for approximately 29-30 hours.
See also Interrogatory #3 above. No other unreasonable force was used against me. At no

3

time in my Complaint, including paragraph 29 of my Complaint, did I allege that any of
the Defendant Officers “hit Plaintiff with a flashlight and punched him on his body, all
while Plaintiff was handcuffed to the wall and defenseless.” Counsel for Defendants
clearly lifted this interrogatory from the interrogatories sent to Mr. Taylor without editing
them to make them apply appropriately to me.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Do you contend that one or more of the Defendant Officers witnessed another Defendant
Officers' use of unreasonable force against you at any time between December 2, 1992 and
December 4, 1992? If so, identify the Defendant Officer who witnessed the use of
unreasonable force on you, identify the Defendant Officer who was responsible for using the
unreasonable force, describe the particular injury suffered by you, if any as a result of the use
of unreasonable force, state when and where the injury was inflicted, and whether you believe
that any Defendant Officer had a reasonable opportunity to prevent the injury and the factual
basis for your allegation.
ANSWER:

O’Connor, Abreu, and Villardita were fully aware that I was

handcuffed to the ring on the wall the entire time that I was in their custody. No further
force is alleged.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Do you have any evidence that any of the Defendant Officers had knowledge that your
confession was false, fabricated and/or coerced. If so, identify any such evidence and identify
the Defendant Officers with such knowledge, including how and when the Defendant Officers
came to have this knowledge.
ANSWER:

Yes. Mr. Patrick objects to this interrogatory as it overbroad and

premature. It requests that he respond with every virtually every document and every
piece of testimony that is relevant to this case. The evidence that Defendant Officers

4

Villardita, Johnson, O’Connor, Abreu, and Killacky had knowledge that each of the
confessions was false includes but is not limited to the following facts:
1)

Defendant Officers Villardita, Johnson, O’Connor, Abreu, and Killacky
made up the information set forth in the confessions. They knew they were
making it up while they were making it up.

2)

Defendants Officers Villardita, Johnson, O’Connor, Abreu, and Killacky
were aware of substantial evidence that other individuals had recently
engaged in violence against Lassister and were the likely murderers of
Lassiter and Haugabook. They learned this information between November
16 and December 2 through the investigation of the Lassiter/Haugabook
murders.

3)

Defendant Officers Villardita, Johnson, O’Connor, Abreu, and Killacky
knew that none of the criminal defendants had any violence in their criminal
history. They learned this information on or about December 2 or 3, if not
before.

4)

It is wholly incredible that the alleged confessors confessed to a double
murder within the time frame and under the circumstances that Defendant
Officers Villardita, Johnson, O’Connor, Abreu, and Killacky assert
occurred. Defendants knew that the confessions did not occur within the
ridiculously short time frames they allege from whenever they first alleged
that they had obtained a confession.

5)

The fact that these confessions may be easily proven false through the now
available (including previously unavailable) evidence that alleged confessor
5

Daniel Taylor was in a Chicago Police Department lockup at the time of the
murder.
6)

The numerous steps that Defendants Officers Villardita, Johnson, O’Connor,
Abreu, and Killacky went to fabricate evidence to prove that Mr. Taylor was
not in the lockup during the time of the murders further establishes that they
knew the confessions they obtained were false, including but not limited to
the false evidence that they obtained from Defendant Glinski, Defendant
Berti, Adrian Grimes, and Michael Seymore, and the evidence that they
purposefully withheld from James Anderson.

7)

Certain false testimony related to obtaining the confessions provided by one
or more of the Defendant Officers at the suppression hearings and/or
criminal trials of Mr. Patrick and/or his co-criminal defendants is further
evidence that the officers knew that the criminal defendants’ confessions
were false.

This is not an exhaustive list, and investigation continues.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Describe each and every fact which supports your contention that the "Defendant Officers
found Anderson and informed him they were investigating a crime and were trying to
determine whether a young man had been locked up when the crime occurred" as alleged in
Paragraph 41 of your Complaint. In so doing, identify the Defendant Officers who
interviewed Mr. Anderson, the date and time when they interviewed Mr. Anderson and the
location where the interview took place.
ANSWER:

Anderson’s affidavit; Anderson’s original deposition testimony from

Mr. Taylor’s federal habeas case; Anderson’s more recent deposition testimony; the lockup

6

roster that indicates that Anderson and Taylor were in the lockup together; the existing
police reports that indicate that the police were looking for Taylor; the fact that in one of
those reports, there is an express reference related to Anderson in a Villardita/Johnsonprepared report from a specific date, a document that has never produced.
As to your request that we identify the “Defendant Officers who interviewed Mr.
Anderson, the date and time when they interviewed Mr. Anderson and the location
where the interview took place,” this is really a cruel joke given that that this information
(1) is solely within the knowledge of the Defendant Officers and others in the Chicago
Police Department, (2) is information these individuals were required by the United States
Constitution to turn over to Mr. Patrick prior to his 1995 criminal trial, and (3) is
information that the Defendant Officers and others within the Chicago Police Department
continue to withhold. Mr. Patrick spent 21 years in prison for murders he did not commit
because the Defendant Officers buried this central evidence. This is the very reason that
the Brady doctrine exists. Defendants are not permitted to withheld exculpatory evidence
and then demand that plaintiffs prove facts that Defendants have buried. Investigation
continues. When you turn over the withheld the police report or reports related to
Anderson, we will be able to supplement this interrogatory.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Do you contend that any of the Defendant Officers engaged in misconduct against you because
of your race? If so, describe in detail the factual basis for your allegation.
ANSWER:

Mr. Patrick has no express allegation that the Officers engaged in

race-based arrests, fabrication of evidence, wrongful withholding of evidence, or false

7

testimony, but we certainly reserve the right to point out to the jury that none of the
Defendant officers were black and all of the defendants were black. If the jury infers that
this fact played a role in the defendants’ misconduct, the jury may so infer, but Mr. Patrick
have no specific evidence beyond this fact that the conduct of the Defendant Officers was
race-based. Mr. Patrick is hampered in this regard by his inability to get inside the minds
of the Defendant Officers as of the time they engaged in misconduct. Investigation
continues.

INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
Identify the Defendant Officer(s) whom you allege denied you the right “to have an attorney
present despite identifying an attorney by name (“Sheila Kalish”) and requesting that she be
called” as stated in Paragraph 25 of your Complaint and describe in detail when you made the
request and the number of times you made such a request.
ANSWER:

Abreu and O’Connor. On December 2, 1992, shortly after I was

arrested, and again in the very early hours of December 3. I made the request numerous
times; if I had to approximate, I would say approximately 5-6 times.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
Identify the co-defendant whom you alleged stated “Yes, that’s C-Deon. He’s the one who
killed those two people” as stated in Paragraph 25 of your Complaint and also identify each codefendant that was brought to the door by the Defendant Officers alleged in Paragraph 25 of your
Complaint.
ANSWER:

Daniel Taylor.

8

INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Describe each and every fact upon which you base the allegation in Paragraph 74 of your
Complaint that you were “degraded and demeaned in prison, subjected to physical and mental
abuse, and treated by prison guards as double-murderer for 21 years.”
ANSWER:

There are numerous ways in which the IDOC prison environment

degrades prisoners, including the way in which prisoners are placed and handled. At times
for no apparent reason prisoners are required to stand naked and in very close proximity
to other prisoners. Being in prison for a crime I did not commit was itself a form of daily
mental abuse. I was treated as a murderer in every respect, from the security level of the
prisons to which I was sent in the first instance to my daily treatment at the prisons.

INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
Describe in detail (and without resort to legal conclusions or reference to your complaint) each and
every piece of exculpatory evidence that you allege was suppressed by the Chicago Police and/or
Defendant Officers upon which you base any claims in the above-entitled matter.

ANSWER:
(1) Anderson’s statements to police officers that he was in lockup with Taylor on
November 16, 1992.
(2) The handwritten notes of Anderson statement above in (1).
(3) The police report or reports of Anderson’s statement above in (1), including but
not limited to the December 30 report prepared by Villardita and Johnson that
has never been produced.
(4) The unsigned chronology of key events prepared by Villardita.
(5) The signed chronology of key events prepared by Villardita.
(6) The lockup roster of prisoners.
9

(7) The lockup roster of those officers who were on shift during the period of time
that Mr. Taylor and Mr. Anderson were in lockup.
(8) Failure to record at all or in sufficient exculpatory detail the portions of
Mr. Patrick’s interrogation in which he repeatedly stated that he had no
involvement in the murders of Haugabook and Lassiter and had no evidence
available to him related to those murders.
(9) Failure to record at all or in sufficient exculpatory detail the portions of the
interrogations of other criminal defendants in which those individuals
repeatedly stated that they had no involvement in the murders of Haugabook
and Lassiter and had no evidence available to them related to those murders.
This is not an exclusive list. Investigation Continues.

INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Describe in detail (and without resort to legal conclusions or reference to your complaint) each
and every piece of impeachment evidence that you allege was suppressed by the Chicago Police
and/or Defendant Officers upon which you base any claims in the above-entitled matter.
ANSWER:
(1) The Agreement that was made with Adrian Grimes that if he testified to seeing
Daniel Taylor on the street certain drug charges against him would be dropped
and/or the State’s attorney would recommend a substantially reduced sentence.
This is not an exclusive list; investigation continues.

10

INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
Describe in detail (and without resort to legal conclusions or reference to your complaint) any
and all reports and any other evidence that you allege was fabricated by the Chicago Police
and/or Defendant Officers upon which you base any claims in the above-entitled matter.
ANSWER:
(1) The confession of Lewis Gardner.
(2) The confession of Paul Philips.
(3) The confession of Akia Philips.
(4) The confession of Daniel Taylor.
(5) The confession of Deon Patrick.
(6) The confession of Jospeh Brown
(7) The confession of Rodney Mathews.
(8) The confession of Dennis Mixon.
(9) The testimony of Adrian Grimes was fabricated in part and was suborned by
one or more of the defendants.
(10)

The testimony of Michael Seymore was fabricated in part and was suborned

by one or more of the defendants.
(11)

The report prepared by Officers Berti and/or Glinski related to seeing Daniel

Taylor on the street was fabricated in part and was suborned by Defendant
Villardita.
(12)

The trial testimony of Officer Glinski related to seeing Daniel Taylor on the

street was fabricated in part and was suborned by Defendant Villardita.
This is not an exhaustive list. Investigation continues.

11

INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
Have you ever filed or been a party to any other suits seeking recovery for personal injuries or
civil rights violations? If so, state the nature of the injuries claimed, the court and caption in
which filed, the years filed, and the disposition of any such suits.
ANSWER:

No.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Between the date of your arrest on December 3, 1992 and the present date, have you had any
communications with any persons other than your attorneys, included but not limited to any
reporter, journalist, newscaster or any person affiliated with any newspaper or television station,
regarding the allegations in your Complaint. If so, please describe each and every person with
whom you have had such communications, the date, time and place of such communication,
whether the conversation was oral or written, the name of the person(s) in possession of any
recorded communication (written or oral), and the entire substance of such communication.
ANSWER:

Steve Mills in person. Steve Mills by phone. Maurice Posseley in

person. Maurice Posseley by phone. A guy from CNN whose name I don’t recall in person
at studios rented by CNN in Chicago.

A guy from Huffington Post whose name I don’t

recall, taken by webcam; I participated from the offices of Valorem Law Group; I don’t
know where the reporter was. I don’t recall the dates these occurred, but Mills and
Posseley were before my release, and Mills, the CNN reporter, and the Huffington Post
reporter were after my release.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
Identify all persons, if any, you may call to testify against the Defendant Officers pursuant to
Fed.R.Evid 404(B) and for each person identify:
(a)
(b)
(c)

the person’s name and last known address and phone number;
the nature of the claim or incident involving the person;
the date of the claim or incident involving the person.

ANSWER:

None identified at this time. We will timely supplement.

12

INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
Please list the name, address and telephone number of each person, other than experts, who is
familiar with or has personal knowledge of the subject matter of this lawsuit, as well as a detailed
account of the nature of said knowledge, and whether you expect to call that individual as a witness
at trial. For each such witness, summarize his or her expected testimony.
ANSWER:
Statement.

See our Rule 26(a)(1) Statement; see also your Rule 26(a)(1)

See also numerous other responses to these interrogatories and numerous

other responses to the interrogatories propounded by Defendant Officer Villardita.

INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
Please list the name, address and telephone number of each expert you expect to call as a witness
at trial and for each such expert, please provide:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

the subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify;
the substance of all facts to which each expert is expected to testify;
a summary of the opinion of each expert; and
a comprehensive list of all cases in which the expert has provided expert
testimony, including case number and jurisdiction, and the name, address and
telephone number of the attorney or party responsible for hiring the expert.

ANSWER:

None has been retained at this time. We will seasonably supplement

at a time that expert disclosures are required.

INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
Were any photographs, tapes (video or audio), slides, movies, pictures, drawings, demonstrative
exhibits, or any other representations, which are related to the allegations in your Complaint
made or taken? If so, state and identify the following:
(a)

(b)

the date(s) on which the photographs, tapes (video or audio), slides, movies,
pictures, drawing, demonstrative exhibits or any other representations were made
or taken;
the name of the person(s) who made or took the photographs, tapes (video or
audio), slides, movies, pictures, drawings, demonstrative exhibits or any other
representations, and;

13

(c)

the name of the person(s) who now has custody of such photographs, tapes (audio
or video), slides, movies, pictures, drawings, or other representations.

ANSWER:

None to my knowledge, with the exception of the following:

To the extent the CNN coverage is related to the allegations of my complaint, it may
have resulted in photographs, videotape, audiotape, movies, or pictures. Neither I nor my
lawyers are in possession of any such photographs, videotape, audiotape, movies, or
pictures.
To the extent the Huffington Post coverage is related to the allegations of my
complaint, it may have resulted in photographs, videotape, audiotape, movies, or pictures.
Neither I nor my lawyers are in possession of any such photographs, videotape, audiotape,
movies, or pictures.
I believe that photographs, videotape, audiotape, movies, and/or pictures were taken
of my release from prison on January 10, 2014. To the extent that my physical release
from the prison is related to the allegations of my complaint, and to the extent that any
such photographs, videotape, audiotape, movies, and/or pictures will be used as evidence,
such photographs, videotape, audiotape, movies, and/or pictures will be produced as part
of our document production.
Mr. Patrick reserves the right to modify and supplement all of these responses to the extent
permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence.
Dated: November 17, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
Deon Patrick, Plaintiff
/s/ Stuart J. Chanen

14

Stuart J. Chanen
Nicole Nehama Auerbach
Daniel Wucherer
Valorem Law Group
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60601
[phone]
[phone] – Fax
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 17, 2014, a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Deon
Patrick’s Amended Responses to Defendant Thomas Johnson’s First Set of Interrogatories was
served by electronic and first-class mail to the following attorneys of record:
Steven B. Borkan
Timothy P. Scahill
Misha Itchhaporia
Borkan & Scahill, Ltd.
Two First National Plaza
20 South Clark Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, Illinois 60603
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Lisa M. Meador
Thomas E. Nowiski
Assistant State’s Attorneys
Richard J. Daley Center
50 W. Washington St., Suite 500
Chicago, Illinois 60602
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Terrence M. Burns
Daniel M. Noland
Paul A. Michalik
Dykema Gossett PLLC
10 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2300
Chicago, Illinois 60606
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

/s/ Stuart J. Chanen
Stuart J. Chanen