BELLEVILLE – Visiting judge Daniel Emge granted the addition of civil conspiracy claims to a malicious prosecution suit of former judge Ron Duebbert on June 2.
Emge denied motions to dismiss claims that former state’s attorney Brendan Kelly and others conspired to remove Duebbert from office.
He had dismissed Duebbert’s conspiracy claims last December, while allowing him to claim malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of distress.
Emge gave Duebbert 30 days to support his conspiracy claims, and Duebbert’s counsel Michael Lawder added allegations to the complaint in January. Emge then found Duebbert sufficiently pleaded a conspiracy claim against Kelly, now director of Illinois state police.
He found Duebbert also sufficiently pleaded conspiracy claims against Belleville detectives Daniel Collins and Timothy Crimm and local lawyer Alex Enyart.
Defendant Carlos Rodriguez, who lacks counsel, filed no motion.
Rodriguez signed an affidavit in 2017, accusing Duebbert of sexual abuse.
Enyart took the affidavit to Collins and Crimm, and special prosecutors David Robinson and Lorinda Lamken-Finnell brought felony charges.
Duebbert conducted discovery and in 2018, he found Enyart told Lamken-Finnell that Rodriguez embellished his affidavit.
As soon as Duebbert brought Enyart’s statement before visiting judge Michael McHaney, Lamken-Finnell and Robinson chose to “nolle prosequi.” McHaney then declared the case over.
Duebbert sued Kelly, Collins, Crimm, Enyart, Rodriguez, Robinson, and Lamken-Finnell in 2019.
Emge granted immunity to Robinson and Lamken-Finnell last December.
In his current order, he found Duebbert alleged that defendants and prosecutors agreed to do all things necessary to remove him as circuit judge.
He found Duebbert alleged that these things included creating false evidence and a sham prosecution.
He found Duebbert alleged that Kelly met with the prosecutors on multiple occasions before and after their appointment.
He found Duebbert alleged that Rodriguez committed perjury in return for money, or free legal service, or a guarantee against conviction in a pending felony case.
He found Duebbert alleged that Kelly continued to assist other defendants in furthering the conspiracy by keeping it quiet and continuing the prosecution.
Along with allowing conspiracy claims, Emge allowed malicious prosecution claims as he did last December.
He rejected an argument from Kelly that Duebbert failed to show an absence of probable cause.
He found Duebbert alleged that all parties knew the affidavit was false.
“He alleges that the prosecutors charged him regardless, solely based on the false affidavit,” Emge wrote.
Emge rejected an argument from Collins and Crimm that malice wasn’t present.
He found that malice in the context of prosecution is defined as the actuation of a prosecution for an improper motive.
“An improper motive for a prosecution is any reason other than to bring the party to justice,” he wrote.
“Malice may be inferred from a lack of probable cause only where there is no credible evidence that refutes that inference.”
He also rejected an argument from Collins and Crimm that the filing of charges broke the chain of causation for them.
He found Duebbert alleged that all defendants hatched a plan to remove him from office by manufacturing a false affidavit.
“Common sense would indicate that all persons involved in hatching and carrying forth that plan would have played a significant role in the prosecution of the plaintiff," he wrote.
He rejected a similar causation argument from Enyart, finding Duebbert alleged that prosecutors and defendants were part of a plan to frame him.
He found Duebbert alleged that Enyart communicated with prosecutors from before the filing of charges until the charges were nolle prossed.
“Plaintiff further alleges that Enyart communicated with the prosecutors with the intent of exerting influence upon them,” he wrote.
Emge also allowed Duebbert to proceed on claims that Kelly and Enyart intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him.
He rejected an argument from Kelly that Duebbert didn’t allege extreme and outrageous conduct.
He found the degree of a defendant’s power or authority could impact whether conduct is outrageous.
He found Duebbert alleged that the prosecution, including Kelly, concealed exculpatory evidence.
"He further alleges that this was all done in a scheme to ruin his career," he wrote. “In addition, Kelly, being a prosecutor involved in this scheme, held a position of power over plaintiff.”
He found Enyart held a position of power over Duebbert too.
“Plaintiff alleges that Enyart’s role in this conspiracy was to initiate the prosecution by providing the false Rodriguez affidavit to law enforcement," he wrote.
He found courts consider whether a defendant reasonably believed that his objective was legitimate.
“No person could reasonably believe that framing someone for a crime that they did not commit would be a legitimate objective,” he wrote.
He found that, “an average member of the community would believe the alleged conduct of Enyart and others to be outrageous.”
Duebbert beat the rap but lost his job anyway.
After the felony case fell apart, the Illinois Courts Commission removed him for making false statements to police investigating the murder of Carl Silas.
Duebbert testified at his hearing that he was petrified.
He said he heard from a news reporter that police believed his gun was used.
No one would ever connect Duebbert or his gun to the crime, and for that matter no one would ever connect any person or gun to the crime.
Special prosecutors tried to connect David Fields to the crime, by filing murder charges almost entirely on the statements of an eyewitness.
His first trial ended in mistrial when a witness broke rules for his testimony.
At a second trial, an evidence technician had little evidence, a fingerprint expert had no fingerprint, and a weapon expert had no weapon.
A witness from the scene who testified at the first trial didn’t testify at the second.
Jurors acquitted Fields, setting him free after two years in county jail.