Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Lee Evans v. Newark City, et al.
Date: 09-12-2025
Case Number: 23-CV-1723
Judge: Maureen P. Kelly
Court: United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Essex County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Newark Personal Injury Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Newark Insurance Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
Newark, New Jersey, personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a civil rights violation theory.
In 1978, five teenage boys from Newark, New Jersey
disappeared. The case remained unsolved for 30 years. Then,
in 2008 police charged Appellee Lee Evans with their murders.
The case against Evans relied on the allegedly coerced
confession of one man, who was coached by Appellants to
implicate Evans. A jury acquitted Evans of all charges, and he
later brought claims for malicious prosecution. Detectives Lou
Carrega and William Tietjen (collectively "Appellantsâ€) now
argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity.
But the doctrine of qualified immunity does not shield
a malicious prosecution claim where evidence is allegedly
manufactured. It is always unconstitutional for the police to
coerce confessions and manufacture evidence to prosecute a
criminal suspect. We will therefore affirm the District Court's
order denying summary judgment to Appellants.
In 1978, five teenage boys from Newark, New Jersey
disappeared. The case remained unsolved for 30 years. Then,
in 2008 police charged Appellee Lee Evans with their murders.
The case against Evans relied on the allegedly coerced
confession of one man, who was coached by Appellants to
implicate Evans. A jury acquitted Evans of all charges, and he
later brought claims for malicious prosecution. Detectives Lou
Carrega and William Tietjen (collectively "Appellantsâ€) now
argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity.
But the doctrine of qualified immunity does not shield
a malicious prosecution claim where evidence is allegedly
manufactured. It is always unconstitutional for the police to
coerce confessions and manufacture evidence to prosecute a
criminal suspect. We will therefore affirm the District Court's
order denying summary judgment to Appellants.
Outcome:
Motion for summary judgment denied.
Affirmed
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Lee Evans v. Newark City, et al.?
The outcome was: Motion for summary judgment denied. Affirmed
Which court heard Lee Evans v. Newark City, et al.?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Essex County), NJ. The presiding judge was Maureen P. Kelly.
Who were the attorneys in Lee Evans v. Newark City, et al.?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Newark Personal Injury Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Newark Insurance Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was Lee Evans v. Newark City, et al. decided?
This case was decided on September 12, 2025.