File #: 18-221    Version: 1 Name: Lawsuit Settlement - Daniel Jackson
Type: Lawsuit Status: Approved
File created: 7/19/2018 In control: City Council
On agenda: 7/24/2018 Final action: 7/24/2018
Title: Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel with a Request to APPROVE a SETTLEMENT with DANIEL JACKSON, in the Amount of $225,000.00.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Title
Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel with a Request to APPROVE a SETTLEMENT with DANIEL JACKSON, in the Amount of $225,000.00.

Body
BACKGROUND: On February 12, 2016, Daniel Jackson sued the City of Peoria, and three City of Peoria police officers alleging violations of Plaintiff's rights arising from his arrest, interrogation, and ensuing conviction for murder. In March 2010, Jackson was arrested for the August 29, 2009 shooting death of Clifford Harvey. The arrest followed Harvey's associate, eyewitness Easton Eibeck, tentatively identifying Jackson as the shooter after being picked up on an unrelated offense. Jackson confessed to the murder during a two-hour video-taped interrogation. However, the criminal charges were dismissed after his conviction was reversed on appeal. Jackson's suit alleges Defendants violated his constitutional rights by coercing him to falsely confess, withholding exculpatory information, fabricating a witness identification, and performing an unduly suggestive lineup. He also alleged state law claims of malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, willful and wanton conduct, and conspiracy, as well as claims for respondeat superior and indemnification against the City of Peoria. The District Court rejected the City's qualified immunity argument in regard to Plaintiff's coerced and false confession claim brought pursuant to the 5th Amendment. On April 18, 2018, the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal claiming that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity. On January 3, 2018, Plaintiff's counsel indicated Plaintiff would agree to settle the case, inclusive of fees and costs. At the time, Defendants did not pursue this demand because the City believed that the case should be litigated to a successful conclusion. However, the City's insurer, Travelers, made a determination that given the risk in a reverse conviction case (potentially sev...

Click here for full text