Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Government in Malicious Prosecution Case
In Hill v. Cook County, an Illinois Appellate Court upheld a circuit court’s ruling in favor of government defendants in a malicious prosecution claim.
An arrestee sued the county, the county sheriff, and a municipality and various police officers for claims arising from an arrest in connection with an alleged armed robbery. The arrestee claimed that upon his arrest, he entered into an agreement with police that he would not be rearrested or charged in connection with the incident if he passed a polygraph test.
At his criminal trial, the court found the agreement unenforceable because a prosecutor was not involved in the agreement. Subsequently, the arrestee was sentenced to lengthy prison sentences for murder, attempted murder, and armed robbery convictions.
He appealed his conviction, arguing that the court erred in finding his arrest agreement with police invalid. While his appeal was pending, the Illinois Supreme Court decided People v. Stapinski, holding that prosecutors could be bound by agreements made by police officers, and his agreement with police was later found valid and his conviction was vacated.
After his conviction was vacated, he filed an action for malicious prosecution against the government defendants. Because the vacation of his conviction was based on contract law and due process principles, and not the probability of his innocence, the Appellate Court held that the government defendants could not be held liable for malicious prosecution, and the trial court's ruling in favor of the government defendants was proper.
Post Authored by Luigi Laudando & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment