- The Washington Times - Tuesday, November 7, 2006


Andre Wallace faces the distinct possibility that the legal system that wrongly kept him in jail for a third of his life will now tell him that he waited too long to seek compensation.

Several Supreme Court justices indicated yesterday that they are inclined to agree with lower-court rulings that Mr. Wallace missed a deadline by waiting until 2003 to sue the Chicago police officers who arrested him illegally in 1994.

Mr. Wallace was freed from prison in 2002, after Illinois courts ruled that his arrest was illegal, reversed his murder conviction and caused prosecutors to drop charges against him. He had been in custody since shortly after John Handy was fatally shot in 1994, when Mr. Wallace was 15.

He had two years in which to file his civil rights lawsuit. The question before the justices is whether the two-year clock began running when Mr. Wallace was arrested in 1994, when he was released from custody in 2002, or at some point in between.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Mr. Wallace should have taken some action in the two years after his arrest. In similar cases in other parts of the country, appeals courts have said false arrest claims can’t be filed until convictions are nullified.

Kenneth Flaxman, Mr. Wallace’s lawyer, said the court would compound his client’s injury by telling him the deadline, or statute of limitations, had expired

“It’s just tough. You’re seized for 8 years, and you can’t go to state court and you can’t go to federal court,” Mr. Flaxman said.

The Supreme Court is a stickler for deadlines, and several justices said the claim should have been filed closer to the arrest.

The deadline serves several interests, including peace of mind of the police officers who otherwise would not know for years whether they would be sued, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said.

Chicago police officers Kristen Kato and Eugene Roy brought Mr. Wallace in for questioning in Mr. Handy’s death in January 1994. In the course of an interrogation that went through the night, Mr. Wallace said he was subjected to a “good cop/bad cop” routine that included being slapped and kicked. In the officers’ account, Mr. Wallace was free to leave at any time.

Eventually, he confessed. He tried and failed to have his statements thrown out on the grounds that he was arrested without probable cause and that his confession was coerced. He was convicted of first degree-murder in 1996 after a trial in which Mr. Wallace said he shot Mr. Handy in self-defense or, alternatively, in mutual combat, attorneys for the officers argued in court papers.

Mr. Wallace appealed the conviction. The Illinois Appellate Court eventually threw out the confession because it was the product of an arrest made without probable cause.

Prosecutors at that point decided not to try Mr. Wallace again but said they would reinstate the murder charge if they get additional evidence, the officers’ lawyers said.

A ruling is expected before July.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide