Shawn Whirl v. City of Chicago

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 1 of 40 PageID #:1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
SHAWN WHIRL,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
Former CPD detective JAMES PIENTA;
former CPD detective WILLIAM MARLEY;
and the CITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendants.
Jury Demand
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff SHAWN WHIRL, for his complaint against former Chicago Police Detective
JAMES PIENTA; former Chicago Police Detective William Marley; and the CITY OF
CHICAGO alleges as follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.
Plaintiff Shawn Whirl spent 24 years in prison because he was wrongfully
convicted of a murder that he did not commit. Plaintiff was charged with that crime because he
was physically tortured and abused by Area 2 detective James Pienta into giving a false
confession, which was the central piece of evidence against him and compelled him to plead
guilty.
2.
James Pienta is now known to be one of a clandestine group of Area 2 detectives
who worked with, and later under the command and supervision of, former Chicago Police
Commander Jon Burge, to systematically torture African American suspects during
interrogations. The miscarriage of justice in Plaintiffs case was part of a pattern of systemic
torture and physical abuse of African American suspects at Area 2 and, later, at Area 3 police
headquarters. Plaintiffs torture, wrongful prosecution and false imprisonment occurred and
continued because command personnel in the Chicago Police Department, successive
Superintendents of Police and several Mayors of the City of Chicago, most notably former
Mayor Richard M. Daley, all concealed and suppressed their knowledge of ongoing torture and
physical abuse under Burge, blocked and undercut all efforts to expose, discipline, and prosecute
offending officers, and refused to intervene to stop the continuing egregious and criminally
unconstitutional misconduct.
3.
Plaintiff seeks damages for the grievous injuries inflicted upon him from the
persons responsible for this egregious miscarriage of justice.

II.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4.
This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 et seq.; the
Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343(a); the Constitution of the United States; and
supplemental jurisdiction, as codified in 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).
5.
This Court has jurisdiction of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. Venue is
proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). The parties reside, or, at the time the events took place,
formerly resided in this judicial district, and the events giving rise to the claims asserted herein
occurred here as well.

III.
PARTIES
6.
Plaintiff Shawn Whirl is an African-American man, and a citizen of the United
7.
Defendant James Pienta was a duly appointed and sworn Chicago Police detective
States.
who was assigned to the Detective Division at Area 2 Violent Crimes Unit, who engaged in, and
failed to stop, a pattern and practice of torture and brutality himself, and who engaged in the
conduct complained of in the course and scope of his employment. He is sued in his individual
capacity.
8.
Defendant William Marley was a duly appointed and sworn Chicago Police
detective who was assigned to the Detective Division at Area 2 Violent Crimes Unit, who
engaged in, and failed to stop, a pattern and practice of torture and who engaged in the conduct
complained of in the course and scope of his employment. He is sued in his individual capacity.
9.
Defendant City of Chicago is an Illinois municipal corporation, and as such is
responsible for the policies, practices and customs of the Chicago Police Department, its Office
of Professional Standards, its Personnel Division, its Detective Division, and its Superintendent
of Police, as well as those of the Mayor, his office, and his City Council, the Corporation
Counsels Office, and the Chicago Police Board. The City of Chicago is and/or was the
employer of each of the Defendant Officers. The City of Chicago is responsible for the acts of
the Defendant Officers while employed by the City of Chicago and while acting within the scope
of their employment.
10.
At all times relevant to this action, each of the named Defendants acted in the
scope of his employment, and under the color of the laws, regulations, and customs of the State
of Illinois. The individual Defendants actions constituted state action as defined under federal
law.
Unsued Co-Conspirators
11.
From 1981 to 1989 unsued co-conspirator Richard M. Daley was the States
Attorney of Cook County and during that period was responsible for the policies, practices and
customs of that office. From 1989 to 2011, Daley was the Mayor of the City of Chicago and as
such was a chief policymaker for the City of Chicago, its Police Department, City Council, and
Police Board and was and is therefore responsible for the policies, practices, and customs
complained of herein.
12.
Unsued co-conspirator Jon Burge was a duly appointed and sworn Chicago Police
Lieutenant and was, from 1982 to August of 1986, the commanding officer of Chicago Police
Area 2 Detective Violent Crimes Unit. In 1988, Burge was appointed Commander of Area 3
Detective Division by Superintendent Leroy Martin and held this assignment until November of
1991, when he was suspended and, ultimately, fired by the Chicago Police Department for the
torture and abuse of Andrew Wilson. Burge engaged in a pattern and practice of torture and
brutality himself, and also supervised, encouraged, sanctioned, condoned and ratified brutality
and torture by other detectives and supervisors, including, but not limited to, Defendant Pienta
and other Area 2 detectives named herein. Burge, who was the longtime supervising Lieutenant
of Defendant Pienta, was, on June 28, 2010, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for
falsely denying that he participated in, was aware of, and supervised police torture.
13.
Unsued co-conspirator John Byrne was a duly appointed and sworn Chicago
Police Sergeant in the Chicago Police Area 2 Detective Violent Crimes Unit from 1982 to
August of 1986, and supervisor of the Units notorious midnight shift, also known as the A
Team, who also worked on the midnight shift of the Area 2 Violent Crimes Unit. Byrne, like
Burge, engaged in a pattern and practice of torture and brutality himself, and also supervised,
encouraged, sanctioned, condoned and ratified brutality and torture by other detectives,
including, but not limited to, Defendant Pienta.
14.
In 1983 and early 1984 , unsued co-conspirator Leroy Martin was the Commander
of Area 2 and Jon Burges direct supervisor, and from 1987 to 1992, he was the Superintendent
of Police for the City of Chicago, and as Superintendent was responsible for the policies,
practices, and customs complained of herein.
15.
From 1990 to 1998, unsued co-conspirator Gayle Shines was the Director of the
Office of Professional Standards of the Chicago Police Department, appointed by Mayor Richard
M. Daley. As such, she implemented the policies, practices and customs of the CPD with regard
to discipline. Her direct supervisor was the Chicago Police Superintendent.
16.
From 1998 to 2004, unsued co-conspirator Terry Hillard was the Superintendent
of Police for the City of Chicago, and as such was responsible for the policies, practices, and
customs complained of herein.
17.
From 1998 to 2002, unsued co-conspirator Thomas Needham was counsel to, and
administrative assistant for, Superintendent Terry Hillard, who was his direct supervisor, and, as
such, implemented the policies, practices and customs alleged herein.
IV.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff Whirls Arrest, Interrogation, Torture, and Wrongful Conviction
18.
On April 18, 1990 at around 10:00 p.m., the body of taxicab driver Billy Williams
was found in his taxicab at 820 E. 103rd Street in Chicago. The cause of death was a gunshot
wound to the head.
19.
On April 20, 1990, after learning that the police were attempting to contact him,
Plaintiff called Area 2 police headquarters. At approximately 12:30 p.m., while Plaintiff was
speaking to Area 2 detective John Duffy on the phone, he was arrested by Chicago Police
officers and taken to Area 2 for questioning.
20.
Plaintiff was then taken to an interview room and questioned by Area 2 detectives
Duffy and James Dwyer about his whereabouts over the previous two days. Plaintiff answered
their questions truthfully and denied being involved in the murder.
21.
After these detectives finished questioning Plaintiff, they handcuffed his wrist to a
ring on the wall and left the room.

22.
After some time had passed and Plaintiff fell asleep, Defendant James Pienta
entered the interview room, stepped on Plaintiffs foot, slapped him in the face, said wake up
nigger, and slapped him again.
23.
Defendant Pienta handcuffed both of Plaintiffs hands to the ring on the wall and
told him that the statement he gave to detectives Duffy and Dwyer was bullshit, and that they
had his girlfriend, Tanya Crawford, at the police station.

24.
Defendant Pienta attempted to compel Plaintiff to implicate himself in the
Williams homicide, and when Plaintiff refused to do so, Pienta slapped him in the face. Pienta
continued to coerce Plaintiff so that he would implicate himself in the murder, and each time
Plaintiff denied involvement, Pienta slapped him.
25.
At one point, Plaintiff moved into the fetal position to deflect the slaps and
Defendant Pienta, noticing a scratch on Plaintiffs leg, stepped on Plaintiffs foot, took out a set
of keys, and scraped the keys across the pre-existing scratch on Plaintiffs leg.
26.
As Pienta scraped his leg with the key he said, Shut up, nigger, youre going to
cooperate, youre going to listen, or words to that effect.

27.
Pienta repeatedly scraped the key across Plaintiffs leg which caused Plaintiff to
yell out in pain.

28.
Plaintiff eventually agreed to cooperate because he could not take the pain any
longer and he made a statement to Pienta falsely implicating himself in the murder.
29.
Defendant Marley was present at Area 2 while Plaintiff was being interrogated by
Defendant Pienta, and was aware that Plaintiff was being subjected to torture and abuse by
Defendant Pienta, yet failed to intervene to prevent said torture and abuse despite having the duty
and opportunity to do so.
30.
After Plaintiff agreed to cooperate, Pienta went over the statement that he wanted
Plaintiff to recite with him, and when Plaintiff forgot something that Pienta told him to say,
Pienta slapped him and scraped his leg with the key.
31.
After Plaintiff recited the false inculpatory story, Defendant Pienta left the room,
then returned with a soda and a bag of chips.

32.
Defendant Pienta then went over the statement again with Plaintiff, and when
Plaintiff got confused about what he was supposed to say, Pienta muffled him in the face.
33.
Eventually, after Plaintiff was able to recite the false inculpatory statement to
Pientas satisfaction, Defendant Pienta took him out of the interview room to another room in
which Plaintiff was able to see his girlfriend Tanya Crawford through a two way mirror.
34.
Pienta then took Plaintiff to another room, where an Assistant States Attorney,
Defendant Marley and a court reporter were waiting, and Plaintiff went over the statement with
the Assistant States Attorney, falsely implicating himself in the Williams murder.
35.
On the basis of Plaintiffs false inculpatory statement that was fed to him by
Defendant Pienta, Plaintiff was subsequently charged with the attempted armed robbery and
murder and of Billy Williams.
Plaintiffs Suppression Hearing and Trial
36.
In July 1991, the trial judge conducted a hearing on Plaintiffs motion to suppress
statements.
37.
At that hearing, Pienta testified, falsely denying he had abused or threatened
Plaintiff in any way. Pienta was never confronted with other acts of similar abuse that he had
previously participated in while working at Area 2 Violent Crimes Unit, nor with the implements
of his torture, including the set of keys that he used to scrape Plaintiffs leg wound.
38.
No evidence or findings of systemic Area 2 torture and abuse was available to, or
offered by, Plaintiff because this evidence had been suppressed and covered up by the
Defendants and other unsued co-conspirators.
39.
Plaintiff also testified at the hearing, explaining in detail how he was tortured by
Pienta until he agreed to repeat the false confession that Pienta fed to him.
40.
Plaintiffs torture and abuse was corroborated by witnesses who heard him
screaming, observed his freshly opened leg wound, and were parties to his contemporaneous
outcry.
41.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial judge denied Plaintiffs motion to
suppress, accepting Defendants Pientas false and perjured testimony and rejecting Plaintiffs
testimony.
42.
At one of his pre-trial court dates, the State made its intention to seek the death
penalty against Plaintiff clear on the record, and the trial court refused to rule out the possibility
of sentencing Plaintiff to death if he were to be found guilty at trial.
43.
Because his false, coerced and fabricated confession stood as the central piece of
evidence against him, and he feared that he would be sentenced to death if found guilty at trial,
Plaintiff pled guilty to the Williams murder.
44.
After entry of the guilty plea, Plaintiff reasserted his innocence to the Court,
stating: [t]he thing I have to say is for the reason Im taking this plea is for the simple fact that I
didnt do it. I have to say I didnt do it. I didnt do it.
45.
In light of Plaintiffs statement, the trial court, saying that Plaintiffs protestation
of innocence after entering his guilty plea was unprecedented in his experience, refused to accept
the plea and set the case for 2:00 p.m. that same afternoon for the start of a jury trial.
46.
After a brief recess, Plaintiffs lawyer argued vehemently that Plaintiff should be
allowed to make a plea of guilty under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) without
admitting his guilt.
47.
The trial court rejected Plaintiffs counsels argument and decreed that if Plaintiff
was claiming he was innocent, he would have a trial that day.

48.
In the face of an impending death penalty trial where his tortured confession
would be the central piece of evidence against him, Plaintiff, on the advice of counsel, re-entered
his guilty plea and the trial court sentenced him to 60 years on the murder charge and 15 years on
the attempt armed robbery charge to run concurrently. The principal and determinative evidence
connecting Plaintiff to the crime was his false, manufactured, fabricated and coerced confession.
49.
Plaintiffs false confession, which was coerced, constructed, manufactured, and
fabricated by Defendant Pienta, was memorialized in false official reports, and presented to
prosecuting attorneys who relied upon and presented this false, coerced, manufactured, and
fabricated evidence in support of Plaintiffs prosecution.
50.
Defendants Pienta and Marley also suppressed from the prosecutors who
prosecuted Plaintiff, from the judge who heard his case, and from the prosecutors and judges
who prosecuted and heard Plaintiffs post-conviction petitions, that the admissions they
attributed to Plaintiff were false and totally unreliable, coerced through torture, constructed and
manufactured by them, and were a product of a pattern and practice of torture and abuse in which
they participated; additionally they suppressed, committed perjury about, altered, and destroyed
10
the physical implements of this pattern and practice of torture, including the set of keys used
against Plaintiff, as well as the cattle prods, electric shock box, plastic bags, typewriter covers,
blackjacks, telephone books, shotguns, rubber truncheons, and handguns used by them against
numerous other victims of their pattern and practice of torture.
The Conspiracy to Torture and Abuse Suspects at Area 2 and Area 3
Police Headquarters and to Conceal and Cover Up the Torture and Abuse
51.
Plaintiffs torture and abuse was not an isolated incident of individual police
officer brutality and misconduct. Rather, the interrogation and torture of Plaintiff in pursuit of a
confession was part of a long-standing pattern and practice of similar acts of racially motivated
torture, including electric shock, baggings, mock executions and Russian roulette, suspensions,
telephone bookings, and beatings committed, often with the use of racial epithets, against almost
exclusively African American men under the supervision, and with the encouragement,
participation and ratification of Area 2 Violent Crimes Lieutenant and his supervisory
successors.
52.
Because Jon Burge, first as Pientas fellow detective, and later as his supervising
sergeant and commanding lieutenant, for the better part of 14 years, condoned and directly
participated in acts of torture and physical abuse of suspects, detectives under his supervision
and command -- Pienta among them -- came to believe that they could torture and physically
abuse suspects with impunity. Since torture and physical abuse often produced confessions,
closed cases, and were rewarded with promotions, it was expedient for these officers to engage
in these forms of horrific abuse. These detectives continued the torture and abuse of suspects in
order to gain confessions long after Burge left Area 2.
11
53.
The earliest known cases of torture in this pattern occurred in or about August of
1972, when Jon Burge, then a detective on the Area 2 midnight shift and his associates, brutally
beat African American suspects Rodney Mastin, Lindsey Smith, and Phillip Moore,
and in May of 1973 when Burge, with the assistance of Defendant Pienta, tortured Anthony
Holmes, using an electric shock box, suffocation with a bag, beating and racial epithets.
54.
The Chicago Police Department took no action to punish or restrain Burge or
Pienta at that time. Over the next decade, Burge and other Area 2 detectives tortured many
African American suspects, including Lawrence Poree, George Powell, Tony Thompson,
Timothy Thompson, Willie Porch, Ollie Hammonds, Derrick King, Michael Coleman, Sylvester
Green, and Melvin Jones.
55.
In February 1982, the Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department, Richard
Brzeczek, and the Mayor of the City of Chicago, Jane Byrne, placed Defendant Burge in charge
of a manhunt for the killers of two white Chicago Police officers. In the course of that manhunt,
Burge and other Area 2 detectives tortured a number of African-American citizens, including
Donald White, Anthony Williams, Lamont White, Walter White, Roy Brown, Walter Johnson,
Paul Mike, Alphonso Pinex, and Larry Milan, and abused and terrorized a large number of other
African-American citizens.
Richard M. Daley, Jane Byrne, Richard Brzeczek and Richard Devine
56.
In the early morning hours of February 14, 1982, Burge and numerous Area 2
detectives, including Defendant Pienta, arrested Andrew Wilson for the police officer murders.
That morning and throughout that day, Burge, Defendant Pienta and other Area 2 detectives
12
tortured Wilson, using the following techniques, among others: electric-shocking on the genitals,
ears, and other parts of the body with a black electric shock box and a plug in electrical device;
suffocating with a plastic bag; burning on a radiator; and beating. States Attorney Daley, the then
Mayor of the City of Chicago Jane Byrne, and the then Superintendent of the Chicago Police
Department all closely monitored developments in the manhunt. All three learned from
numerous sources about the widespread abuse during the manhunt, including the torture and
abuse of Andrew Wilson and his brother Jackie Wilson, and did nothing to prevent or stop that
torture and abuse or to discipline, investigate, or otherwise bring to justice Burge and the other
detectives who perpetrated it.
57.
As a direct and proximate result of the failure of Daley, Leroy Martin and their
successors to intervene, to discipline and to adequately supervise, Burge, Byrne, Pienta and other
Area 2 Detectives tortured numerous additional almost exclusively African American suspects
with electric shock, baggings, mock executions, and beatings, often while using racial epithets, in
the period from February of 1982 to April of 1990. The victims in this period included the
following men: Shadeed Mumin, Michael Johnson, Lee Holmes, Rodney Benson, Stanley Wrice,
Bobby Joe Williams, Eric Smith, Alonzo Smith, James Andrews, Reginald Mahaffey, Jerry
Mahaffey, Gregory Banks, David Bates, Darrell Cannon, Lee Norah, Leonard Hinton, Eric
Smith, Leroy Orange, Leonard Kidd, Philip Adkins, Robert Billingsley, Stanley Howard, Dwight
Cavin, Alphonso Pinex, Thomas Craft, Lavert Jones, Alex Moore, Terry Harris, Lonza Holmes,
Mearon Diggins, Michael Tillman, Stephen Bell, Eric Caine, Aaron Patterson, Darrell Cleveland,
Terrence Houston, David Randle, Richard Terrell, Andrew Maxwell, Jerry Thompson, Donald
13
Torrence, Madison Hobley, Jeffrey Howard, Curtis Milsap, and Ricardo Rodriguez.
58.
Defendant Pienta also suppressed from Plaintiff and his counsel, the trial,
appellate and post-conviction prosecutors, and the judges in Plaintiffs criminal proceeding, all
of the facts regarding this extensive pattern of abuse and torture of African American men.
Pienta also suppressed the physical implements of the pattern and practice of torture, including
the set of keys used against Plaintiff, and the cattle prods, electric shock box, plug-in electrical
device, plastic bags, typewriter covers, blackjacks, rubber truncheons telephone books, shotguns,
and handguns used by Burge, Pienta and other Area 2 detectives against numerous other victims
of their pattern and practice of torture.
59.
By no later than February 1982, co-conspirator Daley had direct, personal
knowledge that Defendant Burge and other Area 2 detectives committed acts of torture against
African American suspects at Area 2. During the February 1982 manhunt described above,
Daley closely monitored events, receiving regular reports from subordinates who, at various
times, were at Area 2. Daley therefore knew or should have known of the abuses of African
American citizens that occurred in the course of the manhunt, including, in particular, the abuse
of the White brothers and Anthony Williams, who were placed in protective custody by the Cook
County States Attorneys Office following acts of torture that Burge and his men perpetrated
against them.
60.
Co-conspirator Richard M. Daley was also informed of the arrests of Andrew and
Jackie Wilson on the morning of February 14, 1982. Throughout the day of February 14, as the
Wilsons were tortured (frequently screaming in the course of the abuse), several high ranking
14
Assistant States Attorneys were present at Area 2. An Assistant States Attorney assigned as a
supervisor to the Felony Review Unit, Larry Hyman, participated directly in the interrogation of
the Wilsons, which occurred between sessions of torture at the hands of Burge and his men. The
high ranking members of the States Attorneys Office present at Area 2 on February 14, 1982
knew or should have known that the Wilsons were being tortured. Those high ranking assistants
were reporting directly to Daley and to the First Assistant States Attorney at the time, Richard
Devine. Neither Daley nor any of his top assistants did anything to halt or prevent the torture of
the Wilsons.
61.
On or about February 17, 1982, Superintendent Brzeczek received a letter from
Dr. John Raba, the Director of Medical Services at Cook County Jail, informing the
Superintendent that the medical examination of Andrew Wilson revealed unmistakable evidence
that Wilson had been brutalized while in police custody, and that Wilson reported being tortured
with electric shock. In this letter, Dr Raba demanded an investigation. After conferring with
high ranking police command personnel, the Superintendent wrote a letter to co-conspirator
Daley, enclosing the Raba letter and advising Daley that, in light of the pending prosecution of
Wilson, the Superintendent would not investigate or otherwise pursue the matter without
instructions from Daley.
62.
Co-conspirator Daley received the Brzeczek letter (with its enclosure) and shared
and discussed it with his First Assistant and other high level subordinates. Daley never
responded to the letter.
63.
Daley and his subordinates were fully aware that Superintendent Brzeczeks letter
15
set forth criminal conduct by Burge and other Chicago police detectives and officers, and they
knew or should have known that ASA Larry Hyman might be complicit in this criminal conduct.
They also knew that there was physical, medical, and testimonial evidence which supported the
claim of physical abuse. Not only did Daley fail to instruct the Superintendent of Police to
conduct a criminal and/or administrative investigation, but he also failed to conduct a criminal
investigation of his own, and did not refer the evidence to an independent agency for
investigation. Instead, on information and belief, Daley communicated to Dr. Raba, through
Cook County Board President George Dunne, that Raba should not get involved in the Wilson
case, and subsequently, both Daley and the Superintendent issued separate public
commendations to Burge and his men.
64.
As a direct result of co-conspirator Daleys refusal to act, the Chicago Police
Department, and its Office of Professional Standards indefinitely suspended all investigations
into the allegations of torture and abuse made against Burge and his men, both by Wilson and
Raba, and by the other African American citizens who were tortured and abused during the
manhunt.
65.
Throughout the manhunt, the arrests first of the White brothers then of the Wilson
brothers, the receipt and discussions of the Brzeczek letter, and the decision not to contact
Brzeczek or to investigate, Daley and his subordinates, on information and belief, generated
memoranda, notes, and other written communications documenting these events and decisions.
66.
This documentation, including the original copy of the Brzeczek letter, which
contained a received stamp from Daley, no longer exists, and, on further information and belief,
16
was destroyed by Daley.

67.
In the period of time between the Wilsons torture, in February 1982, and when
Daley left the Cook County States Attorneys Office in December of 1988, Cook County
prosecutors, under Daleys direction, prosecuted at least thirty African American men who were
tortured by Defendants Pienta and Marley and co-conspirators Burge, Byrne, and other
detectives under Burge and Byrnes command and supervision. In none of these cases did Daley
or his subordinates disclose specific exculpatory information within the possession of the office
regarding the torture of Andrew Wilson and the specific knowledge of Daley and his high
ranking subordinates as to the truth of Wilsons allegations. In none of these cases did Daley
request or pursue an investigation into the allegations of torture.
68.
Daley had direct, personal knowledge of the claim of torture in a substantial
number of the torture cases that the Cook County States Attorneys Office prosecuted during
this period of time. There is no more grave and important decision made by the States Attorney
of Cook County than the decision to seek the death penalty against an accused defendant. Each
and every such decision was made personally by the States Attorney himself after careful
review of the case and full consultation with both his high command and the line assistants
handling the prosecution.
69.
Subsequent to seeking and obtaining the death penalty in Andrew Wilsons case,
Daley personally decided to seek the death penalty against Darrell Cannon, Leroy Orange,
Leonard Kidd, Stanley Howard, Aaron Patterson, Reginald Mahaffey, Jerry Mahaffey, Michael
Tillman, and Steven Bell,all of whom claimed that they were tortured by Area 2 Lieutenant
17
Burge, Midnight Sergeant John Byrne, Defendants Pienta and Marley, and/or other Area 2
personnel. On information and belief, Daleys personal review of these cases revealed to him that
each of these African American men claimed to have been tortured by Burge, Byrne, Pienta
and/or other Area 2 personnel, in some cases using techniques identical or very similar to those
Daley knew had been used against Andrew Wilson. Knowing that these individuals all credibly
claimed that they had been tortured into confessing, Daley nonetheless decided to seek the
ultimate punishment against each of them, in each case declining to pursue any investigation of
the involved Area 2 officers and deliberately failing to disclose the exculpatory information in
his personal possession and in possession of the Office of the Cook County States Attorney.
70.
At the time Daley reviewed the cases set forth in paragraph 69 above and decided
to seek the death penalty in each of those cases he (a) had near-certain personal knowledge that
Andrew Wilson had been tortured and that numerous other African Americans had been tortured,
abused, and terrorized by Burge and his men during the Wilson manhunt; (b) had personal
knowledge that Burge and his Area 2 detectives were allegedly continuing to practice extreme
physical abuse and torture against African American suspects; and (c) personally knew of
exculpatory information regarding the pattern of torture, which he had deliberately suppressed
since February 1982. Daley nonetheless decided to seek the ultimate punishment against these
African American men without pursuing any investigation of their allegations and deliberately
failing to disclose the exculpatory information in his personal possession and in possession of the
Office of the Cook County States Attorney.
18
Leroy Martin
71.
Leroy Martin was the Commander of Area 2 in 1983 and early 1984, and was
Burges direct supervisor. At that time, Martin learned that his Violent Crimes Lieutenant Jon
Burge, his Midnight Sergeant John Byrne, and detectives under their command, including
Defendant Pienta, systematically tortured and abused numerous African American suspects,
including Andrew and Jackie Wilson, Eric Smith, Alonzo Smith, James Andrews, Jerry
Mahaffey, Reginald Mahaffey, Gregory Banks, David Bates, Darrell Cannon, James Cody and
Leonard Hinton. Martin failed to initiate appropriate investigations or to discipline Burge, Byrne,
Pienta, or any other Area 2 officers in connection with any of these cases.
72.
In 1987, Martin was named Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department.
As Superintendent, possessing direct knowledge of Burges practices from his time as Area 2
Commander, Martin continued to fail to intervene, to supervise, discipline or otherwise act to
prevent the ongoing misconduct of Burge and his men. Following Plaintiffs torture and
wrongful conviction, Martin worked actively to conceal and suppress evidence of the pattern of
torture, as is fully alleged below.
The Actions and Inactions of Daley, Martin, Hillard, Needham and Shines to Conceal and
Cover Up the Pattern of Torture under Burge Frustrated Plaintiffs Efforts to Exonerate
Himself and Prolonged Plaintiffs Unjust Incarceration
73.
Following his conviction in 1991, Plaintiff languished in prison until 2015, when
he was exonerated.
74.
Plaintiffs wrongful prosecution was continued, his exoneration was delayed and
his imprisonment and wrongful conviction lasted far longer than it otherwise would have
19
because, for many years, Daley, Martin, Hillard, Needham and Shines, in conspiracy amongst
themselves and with others, including Defendant Pienta and co-conspirators Burge, Byrne, their
police confederates, and successive Police Superintendents and police command personnel,
continued to make extraordinary efforts to suppress, conceal and discredit exculpatory evidence
regarding the pattern of torture and physical abuse of African American men by Chicago Police
detectives under Burges command.
75.
In 1989, co-conspirator Daley became the Mayor of the City of Chicago. In that
capacity he was directly responsible for the appointment of the Superintendent of the Chicago
Police Department. Daley also had ultimate responsibility for the operations of the Police
Department. Daley therefore had the duty to take all necessary steps to ensure that the
Department and its officers disclosed exculpatory information to all victims of co-conspirators
Burge, Byrne, and their Area 2 confederates, including Defendant Pienta. In addition, Daley had
an ongoing duty to disclose exculpatory information to Plaintiff and other Burge victims of
which Daley had become personally aware while he was States Attorney of Cook County.
76.
Co-conspirator Daley, while Mayor 1) did not disclose exculpatory information in
his possession at any time from the date he resigned as States Attorney of Cook County, until he
left the Mayors office in 2011; 2) did not intervene at any time to direct the Chicago Police
Department to disclose exculpatory information in its possession regarding Burge; and 3) did not
direct the CPD to conduct a thorough and aggressive investigation of Burge, Byrne, Pienta, and
the other detectives who abused African American men while working under Burges command.
77.
Rather than disclose exculpatory material and conduct appropriate investigations,
20
co-conspirators Daley, Martin, Hillard, Needham, Shines and other co-conspirators caused the
Chicago Police Department to actively conceal and suppress information regarding the scope and
extent of the torture and abuse of African American suspects that occurred under Burge. Their
actions in this regard included, but are not limited to those alleged above and below.
78.
In 1990 a report (hereinafter, the Goldston Report) was prepared by Chicago
Police OPS investigator Michael Goldston, which found that there was systematic abuse of
suspects held in custody at Area 2 and that Area 2 command personnel were aware of the
systematic abuse and encouraged it by actively participating or failing to take action to stop it. In
1991, the Goldston Report was supplemented with a finding that Burge, Byrne, and several other
Area 2 detectives were prime movers in this pattern of abuse, and that Burge and two of his
subordinates had tortured Andrew Wilson. In a companion Report (the Sanders Report) the
OPS found that Burge and these same two subordinates tortured Andrew Wilson and
recommended that they be fired.
79.
Co-conspirator Martin and other police command personnel delayed, obstructed,
and otherwise undermined the OPS investigation, the Goldston Report, and its findings and
conclusions set forth above, inter alia, by suppressing the findings that Wilson was tortured and
by refusing to suspend, transfer or remove Burge either before, or for nearly a year after, the
Goldston Reports findings were first made known to them in November of 1990.
80.
Martin and other command personnel further delayed, obstructed, and otherwise
undermined the OPS investigation, the Goldston Report, and its findings and conclusions set
forth above, inter alia, by suppressing the findings that there was systematic abuse at Area 2,
21
which implicated Martin, Burge, Byrne, and other Area 2 detectives who worked under Burges
command.
81.
The Goldston Report and its findings were not publicly released until February 7,
1992, when Federal District Judge Milton I. Shadur ordered the Reports release.
82.
On or before February 7, 1992, Mayor Daley was specifically informed or was
otherwise aware of the Goldston Report findings of systematic Area 2 torture that was
condoned and participated in by Area 2 command personnel. Daley knew or should have
known that Martin had been the commanding officer at Area 2 and Burges direct supervisor
during part of the time the Goldston Report found there to be systematic torture, and that
Martin therefore had a motive and the intent to suppress and discredit the Goldston Report and
its findings.
83.
Despite this and all that he previously knew about torture by Burge and his men,
and despite the findings of the Goldston Report itself, Daley: 1) did not seek an independent
federal investigation; 2) direct Martin to initiate a criminal investigation or to open disciplinary
proceedings against the Area 2 detectives, supervisors and command officers identified in the
Goldston Report; or 3) seek the prosecution of Burge and his confederates.
84.
Instead, in a joint effort with Superintendent Martin, Mayor Daley sought to
publicly discredit the Goldston Report and defend Martins prior suppression of it, saying these
are only allegations . . . rumors, stories, things like that. The intent and effect of these
statements was, inter alia, to undermine the accuracy and validity of the Goldston Reports
finding that the torture at Area 2 was systematic and participated in by command personnel.
22
85.
Even after learning of the findings in the Goldston Report, Martin, OPS Director
Gayle Shines, and other command personnel, in violation of police regulations, refused to
investigate numerous other allegations of police torture that were brought to their attention,
including allegations of electric shock and abuse previously made by electric shock victim
Melvin Jones against Defendant Burge.
86.
From 1989 to 1992, Daley and Martin, and their command subordinates, through
several public hearings held by the Chicago City Council and the Chicago Police Board, and a
report by Amnesty International, were given additional actual notice that Burge was the leader of
a group of Chicago detectives that systematically tortured and abused African American suspects
in order to obtain confessions in murder and other serious felony cases.
87.
In January of 1992, Martin admitted in a publicly filed pleading that an
astounding pattern or plan on the part of Burge and his confederates to torture certain
suspects, often with substantial criminal records, into confessing to crimes.
88.
In February 1993, the Chicago Police Board fired Burge for torturing Andrew
Wilson. These findings became final in December 1995.

89.
In 1993, the OPS re-opened investigations into approximately ten Area 2 torture
cases. After an exhaustive re-investigation, which uncovered substantial new evidence in

support of the allegations, OPS investigator Veronica Tillman sustained numerous allegations
that Sergeant Byrne and Area 2 Detective Peter Dignan racially abused and tortured Darrell
Cannon with the cattle prod. OPS supervisor Carmen Christia reviewed the findings and
approved them.
23
90.
The OPS also entered sustained findings of torture and abuse against Byrne and
Dignan in five other re-opened cases, including that of Gregory Banks and Stanley Howard.
91.
From 1993 until 1998, co-conspirator Shines (who had previously been appointed
by Mayor Daley) under pressure from her fellow co-conspirators, suppressed these findings and
the evidence which supported them by secreting the files in her personal office.
92.
In 1998, co-conspirator Superintendent Terry Hillard and his administrative
assistant Thomas Needham, with full knowledge that Area 2 detectives had participated in a
pattern and practice of torture and abuse of suspects, including Plaintiff, violated police
regulations and obstructed justice by overturning the OPS sustained findings in the six re-opened
cases set forth above; by refusing to investigate other torture victims claims that they had been
tortured; by refusing to investigate OPS Director Shines suppression of evidence; and by
suppressing these OPS files and findings from Plaintiff and other criminal defendants.
93.
On information and belief, Daley also personally insisted, from the time he
became Mayor in 1989 until he was succeeded in 2011, that the City of Chicago continue to
finance the defense of Burge, Byrne, Defendant Pienta and their accused colleagues and
subordinates, despite his personal knowledge that they had committed acts of torture against
African American men while employed as Chicago Police officers and/or supervised and
condoned such acts. Daleys insistence on defending Burge was contrary to the recommendation
of Daleys senior staff that the City sue rather than defend Burge, and continued throughout
Daleys tenure as Mayor, despite Burges indictment in October of 2008 for perjury and
obstruction of justice, and his conviction on these charges on June 28, 2010.
24
Plaintiffs Exoneration
94.
The concealment, obstruction and suppression of exculpatory information and
continuing failure to investigate or discipline described above materially and significantly

continued the wrongful prosecution of Plaintiff, substantially delayed Plaintiffs exoneration, and
caused Plaintiff to face many additional years of unjust incarceration that he would not have
endured if the obstruction, suppression and concealment had not occurred.
95.
On June 13, 2012, the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission (TIRC)
issued a Disposition on Plaintiffs TIRC claim, finding that by a preponderance of the evidence,
there is sufficient evidence of torture to conclude the Claim is credible and merits judicial review
for appropriate relief.
96.
The TIRC, an administrative agency empowered by state law to investigate, make
official findings, and refer cases to Court for judicial review, entered the following findings
concerning Plaintiffs case:
During the course of this questioning, [Whirl] was repeatedly slapped and beaten by
Pienta in order to secure a confession from [Whirl].
After [Whirl] agreed to make a statement, Pienta rehearsed with [Whirl] what
[Whirl] would say when the Assistant States Attorney (ASA) arrived. Every time
[Whirl] made a mistake in repeating what Pienta told him, Pienta used a key to dig
into a pre-existing leg wound which [Whirl] had sustained in an attack by three gang
members several days earlier.
At his motion to suppress, [Whirl] presented evidence that Pienta used a key to
scrape and cut his leg. This evidence included witness testimony and photographs
showing that his leg wound was fresh and raw after his questioning by Pienta.
Without the confession, the prosecutions case against [Whirl] is weak. There were
no eyewitnesses who identified [Whirl] as the perpetrator. The murder weapon was
not recovered. There was no forensic evidence connecting [Whirl] to the offense,
other than a fingerprint from the front passenger side door of the victims cab.
25
Whirl had no prior criminal history and the motive for the robbery presented by the
State was anomalous.
Faced with the possibility of receiving the death penalty, and with his motion to
suppress having been denied, [Whirl] entered a guilty plea to the homicide charge in
return for the prosecution waiving its request for the death penalty.
The confession was the principal evidence introduced by the prosecution to support
the guilty plea.
During the entry of the guilty plea [Whirl] stated that he did not commit the crime,
and was only pleading guilty because of the possibility that he would receive the
death penalty if convicted at trial.
97.
The TIRC also made the following findings and conclusions relevant to the nearly
two decades long pattern and practice of torture which Burge supervised and in which Burge,
Pienta, Byrne, and numerous other Area 2 detectives and supervisors jointly participated:
Pienta was Burges longtime subordinate before Burge was moved from Area 2 to
Area 3.
Pienta worked under Burge since the 1970s, and has an extensive history of
accusations of physical abuse including accusations of abuse which are
remarkably similar to Whirls allegations.
Detective Pienta has been identified in other torture allegations, some of which are
strikingly similar to Whirls allegations; and
Whirls claim is consistent with the office of Professional Standards findings of

systemic and methodical torture at Area 2 under Jon Burge.
98.
Plaintiff subsequently filed a combined petition under the Post-Conviction
Hearing Act and the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission Act, which documented in
detail the longstanding pattern and practice of torture and abuse at Area 2, including other acts of
torture by Pienta.
26
99.
Plaintiffs combined petition was denied after an evidentiary hearing, and he
appealed.
100.
On August 12, 2015, the Illinois Appellate Court vacated Plaintiffs conviction
and held that Plaintiff was entitled to a new motion to suppress hearing on the question of
whether his confession was tortured from him and should consequently be barred from evidence
at a new trial.
101.
The Appellate Court found, inter alia, that it is impossible to conceive how the
State could prevail at a new suppression hearing, and that without Whirls confession, the
States case was non-existent.
102.
On October 13, 2015, the prosecution dismissed all charges against Plaintiff in a
manner indicative of innocence, and on October 14, 2015, he was released from prison.
The Defendants Misconduct Was Committed in Furtherance of a Conspiracy
103.
Defendants Pienta and Marley, acting jointly and with other police and
prosecutorial investigative, supervisory, and command personnel, including those specifically

named as co-conspirators in this complaint, together reached an understanding, engaged in an
ongoing course of conduct and joint action and otherwise conspired and continue to conspire
among and between themselves to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights. This conspiracy
is evidenced, inter alia, by the overt acts set forth above and below, and has continued to the
present, as evidenced, inter alia, by the false testimony and statements denying torture given by
these Defendants and their fellow officers; false statements and testimony Burge, co-conspirator
and former Area 2 detective Michael McDermott, and various other police and assistant states
27
attorney co-conspirators gave to the FBI, before the Federal Grand Jury, and/or at trial in U.S. v
Burge; and by false public statements concerning police torture made by, inter alia, coconspirators Daley, Burge, Byrne and Richard Devine, including those made in July of 2006 in
response to the Special Prosecutors Report, in October of 2008 in response to Burges
indictment, in June and July of 2010 in response to Burges conviction, and in 2015 in response
to the passing by the Chicago City Council of the Reparations Ordinance.
104.
By and through the aforementioned overt acts, together with those set forth above,
each and every defendant and co-conspirator jointly and in conspiracy, with a shared
understanding, intent, and/or meeting of the minds, deprived and continues to deprive Plaintiff of
his constitutional rights, including his right to be free from unreasonable arrest, seizure, wrongful
confinement and imprisonment and the excessive use of force; his right to be free from
involuntary self-incrimination and from interrogation techniques that shock the conscience; his
right to access to the courts and to a fair and impartial trial; and his right to equal protection of
the law, all as protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution.
Plaintiffs Damages
105.
Plaintiff spent 24 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. This time was
emotionally, physically, and psychologically dehumanizing and debilitating, and Plaintiff has
suffered from constant fear and anxiety, deep depression, despair, rage, boredom and loneliness.
Plaintiff also suffered from the loss of sustained contact with his mother, father, and other
members of his family, and was prevented from holding gainful employment or pursuing
28
educational opportunities outside the prison walls. He continues to live under the effects of his
isolation, incarceration, and depression, and until his exoneration, under the stigma of his
wrongful conviction. Additionally, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer, egregious pain and
suffering, humiliation, constant fear, anxiety, deep depression, despair, rage, and post traumatic
stress disorder from his torture and abuse.
COUNT I
(42 U.S.C. 1983 Claim for Deprivation of Fair Trial and for Wrongful Conviction)
106.
Plaintiff re-alleges all of the paragraphs set forth in this complaint.
107.
In the manner set forth more fully below, Defendants Pienta and Marley,
individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with each other and the other named co-conspirators,
caused the wrongful charging, prosecution, guilty plea, conviction, and imprisonment of Plaintiff
and the continuation of that wrongful conviction.
108.
These Defendants caused and/or continued Plaintiffs wrongful charging,
prosecution, guilty plea, conviction and imprisonment by committing or causing to be committed

one or more of the following acts: physically coercing, constructing and/or fabricating the false
and totally unreliable statements and admissions which formed the basis for Plaintiffs charging,
prosecution and conviction; by withholding from the prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys
involved in Plaintiffs prosecution the fact that these statements and admissions were false,
totally unreliable, constructed, fabricated and coerced; by suppressing, destroying and preventing
the discovery and development of additional exculpatory torture findings and other evidence,
including, but not limited to, other acts of torture and abuse that they participated in, the
instruments of torture, as well as other exculpatory evidence; by giving a false and incomplete
29
version of events to prosecutors; by writing false reports and giving false testimony; by
improperly influencing the judges hearing Plaintiffs case, inter alia, by making false public
statements; by obstructing and improperly influencing investigations which would have led to
discovery of further exculpatory evidence; by suppressing and attempting to discredit findings of
individual and systematic torture and abuse; and by the additional wrongdoing set forth above,
thereby unconstitutionally depriving Plaintiff of his liberty and violating his right to a fair and
impartial trial and not to be wrongfully convicted, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
109. Additionally and/or alternatively, Defendants Pienta and Marley failed to intervene
to stop Plaintiffs wrongful prosecution and conviction and resultant imprisonment despite
having the opportunity and duty to do so.
110.
The actions of Defendants Pienta and Marley in depriving Plaintiff of his right to
a fair trial and not to be wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, and, additionally and/or
alternatively, in failing to intervene to stop said violations, were the direct and proximate cause
of the injuries to Plaintiff which are set forth above.
111. Additionally and alternatively, these actions were taken maliciously, willfully,
wantonly and/or with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Pienta and Marley for
substantial compensatory and punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, attorneys' fees and
such other relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT II
(42 U.S.C. 1983 Claim for Coercive Interrogation)
112.

30
113.
The actions of Defendants Pienta and Marley, individually, jointly, and in
conspiracy with each other and with unsued co-conspirator Jon Burge, in coercively
interrogating Plaintiff, and in using torture techniques which shock the conscience during said
interrogations, resulted in false, coerced, and fabricated admissions that were subsequently used
against him in his criminal proceedings, and thereby violated Plaintiffs Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights to be free from compulsory self-incrimination and deprivation of liberty
without due process of law.
114. Additionally and alternatively, these actions were taken maliciously, willfully,
115.
The actions of Defendants Pienta and Marley and co-conspirator Burge, in using
torture and other coercive techniques to interrogate Plaintiff, and/or in devising, encouraging,
facilitating, condoning and permitting the use of said techniques, and failing to intervene to stop
the coercive interrogation of Plaintiff, were the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries
and damages as more fully set forth above.
substantial compensatory and punitive damages, plus the costs of this action, attorneys' fees and
such other relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT III
(42 U.S.C. 1985, 1986 Claim for Conspiracy)
116.
117.
Defendants Pienta and Marley, together with the named and other unsued co-
conspirators, including police and prosecutorial investigative, supervisory, and command

31
personnel, together reached an understanding, engaged and continue to engage in a course of

conduct, and otherwise jointly acted and/or conspired among and between themselves to commit
the unconstitutional overt acts set forth in the facts above.
118.
Because said conspiracy or conspiracies and the overt actions in furtherance
thereof were done and continue to be done with the knowledge and purpose of depriving
Plaintiff, who is African American, and numerous other African American torture victims of the
equal protection of the laws and/or of equal privilege and immunities under the law, and with
racial animus toward the Plaintiff and the other victims of this racially motivated conspiracy, the
Defendants also deprived Plaintiff of his right to equal protection of the laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. 1985.
119.
Additionally and alternatively, these actions were taken maliciously, willfully,

120.
Additionally or alternatively, Defendant Marley, knowing that the above 1985
conspiracy to torture and wrongfully convict Plaintiff was about to be committed, and having the
power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the acts in furtherance of said
conspiracy, neglected and/or refused so to do, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1986.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands compensatory and punitive damages, jointly and
severally, from Defendants Pienta and Marley, plus attorneys fees, the costs of this action and
whatever additional relief this Court deems equitable and just,
COUNT IV
(42 U.S.C. 1983 Monell Policy Claim Against the City of Chicago)
121.

32
122.
The actions of Defendants Pienta and Marley as alleged above were committed
pursuant to one or more interrelated de facto policies, practices and/or customs of the Defendant
City of Chicago.
123.
At all times material to this complaint, the Defendant City of Chicago through its
Police Department, Police Superintendents, Police Board, Mayors, City Council and/or
Corporation Counsels Office had interrelated de facto policies, practices, and customs which
included, inter alia:
a.
conducting physically, psychologically or otherwise illegal or improperly

coercive interrogations of witnesses, suspects and arrestees in order to obtain
confessions and wrongful convictions, particularly the use of torture techniques
under the command and supervision of Leroy Martin, Jon Burge and John Byrne
at Area 2;
b.
manufacturing, fabricating, and/or using improper suggestive tactics to obtain

false witness statements and identifications;
c.
the filing of false reports, and giving false statements and testimony about said
interrogations and confessions and fabricating or constructing parts or all of said
confessions, suppressing evidence concerning said interrogations and confessions,
pursuing and obtaining wrongful prosecutions and false imprisonments on the
basis of confessions obtained during said interrogations, denying suspects their
right to full and fair access to the courts, and otherwise covering up the true nature
of said interrogations and confessions particularly in circumstances where torture
techniques were used by Area 2 detectives;
d.
the failure to video and/or audio tape the interrogation or questioning of suspects,
arrestees, and witnesses, particularly in the circumstances set forth in a-b above;
e.
the failure to properly train, supervise, discipline, transfer, monitor, counsel

and/or otherwise control police officers, particularly those who were repeatedly
accused of torture and related abuse of suspects; of false arrests, wrongful
imprisonments, malicious prosecutions and wrongful convictions; of making false
reports and statements; and/or of physically, psychologically or otherwise
illegally or improperly coercively questioning or interrogating witnesses, suspects
and arrestees, particularly persons who were tortured and or physically and/or
psychologically abused during questioning. This failure to properly train,
33
supervise, discipline, transfer, monitor, counsel and/or otherwise control includes

the repeater Defendant James Pienta as well as all the other Area 2 and 3
detectives who were repeatedly accused of torturing and physically abusing
suspects;
f.
the police code of silence, specifically in cases where officers engaged in the
violations articulated in paragraphs a-d above (i.e., police torture and other
unconstitutional and coercive interrogations at Area 2) whereby police officers
refused to report or otherwise covered-up instances of police misconduct, and/or
fabricated, suppressed and destroyed evidence of which they were aware, despite
their obligation under the law and police regulations to so report. Said code of
silence also includes police officers either remaining silent or giving false and
misleading information during official investigations and Grand Jury proceedings
in order to protect themselves and/or fellow officers from internal discipline, civil
liability, or criminal charges, and perjuring themselves in criminal and civil cases
where they and/or their fellow officers have tortured or coercively or otherwise
unconstitutionally interrogated a suspect, arrestee or witness, or falsely arrested,
imprisoned and prosecuted a criminal defendant, particularly in cases where
torture techniques at Area 2 were employed. An egregious example of this code of
silence in the torture cases is evidenced and was invoked in response to the
Governments investigation and prosecution of Jon Burge and the investigation of
other Area 2 officers under his command and supervision;
g.
covering up and suppressing evidence and findings, refusing to properly

investigate, arrest and charge, continuing to finance the defense of Jon Burge,
Defendant Pienta, and other Area 2 detectives and otherwise attempting to both
publicly and judicially defend their actions even after Burge had been indicted
and convicted for lying about these acts, and otherwise obstructing justice in
police torture cases, particularly those that arose at Area 2.
124.
The pattern and practice of torture and abuse at Area 2, the cover-up of
that abuse and the wrongful prosecutions and convictions which resulted therefrom, were well
known within Area 2 well before Plaintiff was tortured and wrongfully convicted, including by
the command officers at Area 2, which included Jon Burge and Leroy Martin, and Burges
successor, Phil Cline, as well as to former Chicago Mayors Jane Byrne and Richard M. Daley
and their Chiefs of Staff, successive Police Superintendents, including Richard Brzeczek, Fred
34
Rice, Leroy Martin, Matt Rodriguez, Terry Hillard, and Phil Cline, to the successive OPS
Directors, including Gayle Shines, and Callie Baird, to various Command Personnel, including
Deputy Superintendents McCarthy, Lyons, Hoke and Townsend, to the Chiefs of Detectives,
including William Hanhardt and Terry Hillard, to the Chicago City Council and the Chicago
Police Board, and to other policy making, command, and supervisory City and police personnel,
who participated in the cover-up and suppression of evidence, the wrongful prosecution and
conviction of the Plaintiff and other torture victims, and the denial of their full and fair access to
the courts, inter alia, in the manner set forth in this complaint.
125.
Said interrelated policies, practices and customs, as set forth above, both
individually and together, were maintained and implemented with deliberate indifference; they
encouraged, inter alia, the coercing of statements from suspects, witnesses and arrestees, by
torture and related abusive tactics and techniques, the construction and fabrication of
confessions, admissions, statements, and other false witness evidence, the suppression and
destruction of evidence of torture and other exculpatory evidence, the intimidation of witnesses,
the making of false statements and reports, the giving of false testimony, the obstruction of
justice, the manipulation and obstruction of the State and Federal courts, and the pursuit and
continuation of wrongful convictions and false arrests and imprisonments; and were, separately
and together, a moving force behind, and a direct and proximate cause of, the unconstitutional
acts and perjury committed by the named Defendants and their co-conspirators, and the injuries
suffered by the Plaintiff.
126.
Additionally, the City of Chicagos said failure to properly train, discipline,
35
monitor, control, assign, transfer, supervise, and counsel Defendant Pienta, who was involved in
numerous other acts of torture and abuse, including Anthony Holmes, Andrew Wilson, Mearon
Diggins, Aaron Patterson, Eric Caine, Terrance Houston, and Darrell Cleveland, was also done
with deliberate indifference and likewise acted as a direct and proximate cause of the injuries to
Plaintiff.
127.
Additionally, and/or alternatively, the involvement in, and ratification of,
the unconstitutional actions set forth above, by Chicago governmental and police policymakers,
acting in their official capacities, as set forth in detail in the facts above, including, but not
limited to, successive Police Superintendents, including co-conspirators Leroy Martin and Terry
Hillard, and their direct subordinates, including, but not limited to, Gayle Shines and Thomas
Needham, and several Mayors, most notably Mayor Richard M. Daley, who continued to
publicly both ratify, and deny his involvement in, said conduct until he left office in 2011,
establish that said constitutional violations were directly and proximately caused by the City of
Chicago and its Police Department.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant City of Chicago for
substantial compensatory damages, plus costs and attorneys fees and whatever additional relief
this Court finds equitable and just.
COUNT V
(State Law Claim for Malicious Prosecution)
128.
129.
Defendants Pienta and Marley individually, jointly, and in conspiracy, initiated a
malicious prosecution without probable cause against Plaintiff, and these same Defendants,
36
individually, jointly, and in conspiracy, continued said prosecution, again without probable
cause. Said prosecution was ultimately terminated in Plaintiffs favor and in a manner indicative
of innocence. The Defendants actions were done in a willful and wanton manner, and directly
and proximately caused the injury and damage to Plaintiff set forth above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands actual or compensatory damages against Defendants
Pienta and Marley, and punitive damages, the costs of this action, and such other and additional
relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT VI
(State Law Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
130.
131.
Defendants Pienta and Marley individually, jointly, and in conspiracy, by, inter
alia, torturing false admissions from Plaintiff and/or by failing to prevent or stop said torture, by
constructing and fabricating admissions, and by procuring his prosecution, conviction, and
imprisonment for a murder he did not commit by means of said false admissions, engaged in
extreme and outrageous conduct. Additionally these same Defendants, individually, jointly, and
in conspiracy with their named co-conspirators, inter alia, by fabricating, coercing, and
suppressing other evidence, by continuing Plaintiffs false imprisonment after procuring his
wrongful conviction, by refusing to investigate or discipline the torturers, and by making false
public statements, engaged in additional extreme and outrageous conduct.
132.
Defendants Pienta and Marley intended, by subjecting Plaintiff to such
humiliating, degrading conduct, to inflict severe emotional distress on Plaintiff, and knew that
their conduct would cause Plaintiff and his family severe emotional distress.
37
133.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants outrageous conduct, Plaintiff was,
and continues to be, injured, and has, and continues to, experience severe emotional distress,
including nightmares, sleep disruption, symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, anxiety,
depression, inability to focus or concentrate, and a recurring fear of re-arrest, torture, and reprosecution.
compensatory damages, plus the costs of this action, and such other relief as this Court deems
equitable and just.
COUNT VII
(State Claim for Conspiracy)
134.
135.
Defendants Pienta and Marley, with the named and other unsued co-conspirators,
including police and prosecutorial investigative, supervisory, and command personnel, together
reached an understanding, engaged in, and continue to engage in, a course of conduct, and
otherwise jointly acted and/or conspired among and between themselves to maliciously
prosecute and/or continue said prosecution, and to intentionally inflict continuing severe
emotional distress on Plaintiff.
136.
In furtherance of this conspiracy or conspiracies, the Defendants named above,
together with their unsued co-conspirators, committed the overt acts set forth in the facts above.
137.
Said conspirac(ies) and overt acts were, and are, continuing in nature.
138.
Defendants and their co-conspirators overt acts, as set forth above, which were
committed jointly and/or while conspiring together to maliciously prosecute, and intentionally
38
inflict emotional distress on the Plaintiff, constitute the tort of conspiracy as set forth above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands compensatory damages, jointly and severally from
Defendants Pienta and Marley, and, because these Defendants acted in a malicious, willful
and/or wanton manner toward Plaintiff, for punitive damages, plus the costs of this action and
whatever additional relief this Court deems equitable and just.
COUNT VIII
(State Law Respondeat Superior Claim)
139.
140.
Defendants Pienta and Marley were, at all times material to this complaint,
employees of the Defendant City of Chicago, were acting within the scope of their employment,
and their acts which violated state law are directly chargeable to the Defendant City under state
law pursuant to respondeat superior.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the City of Chicago for any and all
compensatory damages awarded on Plaintiffs state law claims against the Defendants Pienta and
Marley, plus the costs of this action and whatever additional relief this Court deems equitable
and just.
COUNT IX
(745 ILCS 10/9-102 and Common Law Claims Against the City of Chicago)
141.
142.
Defendant City of Chicago was the employer of Defendants Pienta and Marley at
all times relevant and material to this complaint.

143.
These Defendants committed the acts alleged above under color of law and
39
in the scope of their employment as employees of the City of Chicago.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102, and otherwise pursuant to
law, demands judgment against the Defendant City of Chicago in the amounts awarded to
Plaintiff against the individual Defendants as damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, and for
whatever additional relief this Court deems equitable and just.
Dated: February 24, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Loevy, Tara Thompson

LOEVY & LOEVY
312 N. May Street, Ste. 100
Chicago, Illinois 60607
(312) 243-5900
/s/ G. Flint Taylor

One of Shawn Whirls Attorneys
G. Flint Taylor, Ben H. Elson
PEOPLES LAW OFFICE
1180 N. Milwaukee Ave
Chicago, IL. 60642
(773) 235-0070
Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all counts.
40

Shawn Whirl v. City of Chicago

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shawn Whirl v. City of Chicago

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shawn Whirl v. City of Chicago

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 1 of 40 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff Shawn Whirl spent 24 years in prison because he was wrongfully

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 2 of 40 PageID #:2

James Pienta is now known to be one of a clandestine group of Area 2 detectives

persons responsible for this egregious miscarriage of justice.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 3 of 40 PageID #:3

occurred here as well.

Plaintiff Shawn Whirl is an African-American man, and a citizen of the United

Defendant City of Chicago is an Illinois municipal corporation, and as such is

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 4 of 40 PageID #:4

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 5 of 40 PageID #:5

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 6 of 40 PageID #:6

such, implemented the policies, practices and customs alleged herein.

ring on the wall and left the room.

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 7 of 40 PageID #:7

had his girlfriend, Tanya Crawford, at the police station.

Defendant Pienta attempted to compel Plaintiff to implicate himself in the

cooperate, youre going to listen, or words to that effect.

yell out in pain.

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 8 of 40 PageID #:8

then returned with a soda and a bag of chips.

At that hearing, Pienta testified, falsely denying he had abused or threatened

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 9 of 40 PageID #:9

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 10 of 40 PageID #:10

was claiming he was innocent, he would have a trial that day.

Plaintiffs false confession, which was coerced, constructed, manufactured, and

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 11 of 40 PageID #:11

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 12 of 40 PageID #:12

The Chicago Police Department took no action to punish or restrain Burge or

In February 1982, the Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department, Richard

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 13 of 40 PageID #:13

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 14 of 40 PageID #:14

By no later than February 1982, co-conspirator Daley had direct, personal

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 15 of 40 PageID #:15

On or about February 17, 1982, Superintendent Brzeczek received a letter from

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 16 of 40 PageID #:16

As a direct result of co-conspirator Daleys refusal to act, the Chicago Police

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 17 of 40 PageID #:17

was destroyed by Daley.

Daley had direct, personal knowledge of the claim of torture in a substantial

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 18 of 40 PageID #:18

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 19 of 40 PageID #:19

In 1987, Martin was named Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department.

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 20 of 40 PageID #:20

Co-conspirator Daley, while Mayor 1) did not disclose exculpatory information in

Rather than disclose exculpatory material and conduct appropriate investigations,

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 21 of 40 PageID #:21

In 1990 a report (hereinafter, the Goldston Report) was prepared by Chicago

Co-conspirator Martin and other police command personnel delayed, obstructed,

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 22 of 40 PageID #:22

On or before February 7, 1992, Mayor Daley was specifically informed or was

Instead, in a joint effort with Superintendent Martin, Mayor Daley sought to

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 23 of 40 PageID #:23

In January of 1992, Martin admitted in a publicly filed pleading that an

Wilson. These findings became final in December 1995.

cases. After an exhaustive re-investigation, which uncovered substantial new evidence in

Case: 1:16-cv-02557 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 24 of 40 PageID #:24