Jesus Zambrano v. City of Joliet and Patrick Schumacher

Chicago, Illinois personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on civil rights violation theory.



Jesus Zambrano was convicted of

first-degree murder in an Illinois state court in August 2013,

but on appeal the Illinois Appellate Court agreed that the trial

court erred in failing to give a jury instruction on accomplice

liability. A second trial ensued in which Zambrano was ac-

quitted of the charge, and he subsequently filed a federal suit

against one of the arresting officers, Detective Patrick Schu-

macher, and sought indemnification from the City of Joliet.

The lawsuit alleged that Schumacher fabricated evidence that

denied him due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The criminal trials involved the murder of Robert Gooch,

who was shot and killed at the apartment of his girlfriend,

Elissa Hinton, in the Larkin Apartments complex in the early

hours of May 22, 2009. Hinton was in the apartment where

the murder occurred, and when Gooch answered the door of

the apartment, Hinton heard Pedro Sanchez's voice say, "it

was my girl,” and then heard a shot which killed Gooch. At

Zambrano's trial, evidence was introduced as to Zambrano's

whereabouts and actions on the day and night of the crime.

Detective Schumacher testified that he spoke with Zambrano

at Zambrano's home on the afternoon of May 22, and Zam-

brano informed him that on the afternoon of May 21 he was

with two friends, Pedro Sanchez and Michael Ortiz, at the

apartment of Zambrano's girlfriend, Claudia Sanchez, located

near the area of Ruby Street and the westside of the Des

Plaines River. In addition, another individual, Christian

Lopez, testified that he was with Zambrano and those same

two friends at Claudia Sanchez's apartment, and that they

were drinking and smoking marijuana. He testified that Zam-

brano later drove the group to McDonald's and then to the

Larkin Apartments. Lopez further testified that when they got

to the apartment complex, he saw Zambrano get a gun from

the car's hood, and then Lopez, Pedro Sanchez and Zambrano

went into the apartment building. Lopez testified that he

waited at the bottom of the stairwell, and that Sanchez and

Zambrano climbed up three floors. He heard a gunshot, and

Zambrano and Sanchez ran down the stairs to the car, where

Zambrano put the gun back under the car hood and drove

everyone back to his house. The jury was also shown surveil-

lance video from the McDonald's, which showed a sedan

driven by Zambrano pull through the drive-through at the

McDonald's between 12:36 a.m. and 12:40 a.m. on May 22.

They also saw surveillance video from the Larkin Apart-

ments, which was a 5-10- minute drive from the McDonald's,

showing Zambrano's sedan pulling up at 12:47 a.m., and

which showed the driver retrieve something from under the

car's hood and walk toward the building with two individu-

als. It also showed them return to the car at 12:51 a.m., reveal-

ing that the driver ran across the grass, put something under

the car's hood, and drove away. The jury found Zambrano

guilty, but on appeal the appellate court agreed with Zam-

brano that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury

about accomplice liability. The same evidence was presented

in a retrial, and the jury in that trial acquitted Zambrano.

In his due process challenge in this case, Zambrano alleges

that Detective Schumacher fabricated evidence in his police

report which related the initial interview with Zambrano. On

the afternoon of the day of the murder, Detective Schumacher

and five other officers investigating the crime went to Zam-

brano's home and spoke with him. Zambrano was home at

that time with his mother and two friends, Pedro Sanchez and

Michael Ortiz. As Detective Schumacher later set forth in his

police report, Zambrano told him that "in the afternoon hours

of May 21, 2009, he was with his friends, Pedro Sanchez and

Michael Ortiz at Claudia Sanchez's residence located near the

area of Ruby Street and the westside of the Des Plaines River.”

Zambrano admits that he was in fact at Claudia Sanchez's res-

idence at that time and with Pedro Sanchez and Michael

Ortiz. He asserts, however, that he did not give those details

to Detective Schumacher, stating only that he hung out with

his girlfriend and a couple of friends, but that he did not pro-

vide the names of his friends, nor did he tell Schumacher how

to find Claudia Sanchez's house on a map. He alleges, there-

fore, that those statements in the police report by Schumacher

were falsifications. The police report was not introduced into

evidence at trial, but Zambrano testified at trial consistent

with the statements as set forth in his police report.

A fabrication of evidence challenge can implicate different

constitutional protections. A claim for a false arrest or pretrial

detention based on fabricated evidence implicates the Fourth

Amendment protection against seizures without probable

cause, whereas a claim that fabricated evidence was later used

at trial to obtain a conviction violates a defendant's rights un-

der the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments. Patrick v. City of Chicago, 974 F.3d 824, 834–35

(7th Cir. 2020). Zambrano asserts only a due process claim

here.



As the district court recognized, in order to succeed on his

due process claim based on the fabrication of evidence, Zam-

brano must provide evidence which would allow a jury to

conclude that: (1) Schumacher deliberately falsified evidence

in bad faith; (2) the evidence was used at Zambrano's criminal

trial; (3) the evidence was material; and (4) Zambrano was

damaged as a result. See Patrick, 974 F.3d at 835. Considering

only the first two factors, the district court held that neither

factor was met and granted summary judgment in favor of

the defendants. Zambrano now appeals that grant of sum-

mary judgment. We agree that Zambrano failed to produce

evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact as to the

elements of his claim of fabrication of evidence, and we will

address the first and third factors to illustrate that deficiency.

Affirmed