Ex-inmate's $40M suit against Northwestern and former journalism professor OK'd by federal judge
A $40 million lawsuit alleging that Northwestern University, a former star journalism professor and a private investigator conspired to frame a man for a 1982 double murder was OK’d on Tuesday by a federal judge in Chicago.
The defendants had sought to dismiss the case and everyone agreed that a number of counts were time-barred. However, U.S. District Judge Robert Dow said claims of malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy against all defendants, as well as respondeat superior claims against Northwestern, could proceed toward trial. A copy of his Tuesday opinion is available on Pacer (sub. req.).
The suit contends that former Northwestern journalism professor David Protess and private investigator Paul Ciolino fabricated evidence with the help of Northwestern journalism students in 1998 and 1999. Their alleged aim was to seek the release of Anthony Porter, the man originally convicted in the case. That evidence did lead to the release of Porter and the conviction of plaintiff Alstory Simon. Protess and Ciolino are also named as defendents in Simon’s suit.
Simon’s conviction was reversed in 2014, after Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez reinvestigated. She determined that Simon’s videotaped confession obtained by the Protess team was based on what she described as “a series of alarming tactics” that were “unacceptable by law enforcement standards.” Meanwhile, Simon had served 15 years.
The complaint also named as a defendant attorney Jack Rimland, who allegedly was brought in by Protess to represent Simon, but all claims against the lawyer are time-barred, the judge said.
Construing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, for the purpose of deciding a motion to dismiss, Dow said that it stated a “plausible” case that the Protess team, “[r]iding high on the acclaim from two successful exoneration projects (coupled with two book publications, vast media exposure, and a sizeable grant),” had gone too far in its subsequent efforts, in a third project, to free Porter.
The complaint contended that “defendants Protess and Ciolino, with the participation of Protess’ students, knowingly manufactured and fabricated four pieces of false evidence which they contended dismantled the case against Porter and proved that Simon committed the murders.” The pieces of evidence which Simon alleges were fabricated were three witness affidavits and his own false confession. This could be true, the judge wrote:
“It is reasonable to think that defendants, who had garnered tremendous prestige (e.g., book deals, a made-for-TV movie, sizable donations, etc.) from their involvement in two high-profile wrongful conviction cases, would be eager to continue their streak of successes. It is also reasonable to think that defendants, who allegedly used ethically-questionable tactics in their previous investigation, would continue down that path in securing their third in a string of successful exonerations. And finally, it is plausible that the state’s attorney prosecuted plaintiff because of the falsified evidence, which consisted of a recanted eyewitness account, a new eyewitness account, and a corroborated confession.”
While the defense argued that the government prosecuted and convicted Simon independently of the result of the Protess team’s work, whether that is true is a fact for the jury to determine at trial, the judge said.
Attorney Matthew Piers represents Protess. He told the Daily Northwestern that he is confident the lawsuit will end at a later stage, once it reaches a point where the judge is ruling on “evidence rather than allegations.”
A university spokesman declined the newspaper’s request for comment and Ciolino and Rimland could not be reached for comment.
The Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune (reg. req.) also have stories.
Related coverage:
ABAJournal.com: “Ex-inmate sues Northwestern University and journalism prof, says they coerced a false confession”
