Judge Chang thinks that Chicago PD Officer Ryan Sheahan might be lying
Case: MOORE v. SHEAHAN, No. 10 C 5578 (N.D. Illinois, February 4, 2013)
Plaintiff can reasonably argue (whether the jury accepts it is a different question) that the shifting explanations are relevant to Sheahan’s knowledge and consciousness of guilt. . . . Sheahan’s shifting and evidently false statements about whether and how consent was obtained are evidence of Sheahan’s state of mind, and a jury could infer from the consciousness-of-guilt evidence that Sheahan knew that no consent was obtained. In addition, Sheahan provided sworn interrogatory answers in this case regarding the issue of consent that he later admitted were false, or at least inaccurate (and the jury can reasonably infer that he again was trying to hide the true answer—he knew there was no consent—but got caught in a lie). In Sheahan’s interrogatory responses, when asked whether one or more of the occupants of 1523 Greenwood consented to the search, Sheahan stated that “he recalls that consent was given by two females who answered the door.” . . . But Sheila and Shirley Moore—the only adult female occupants of the residence—did not arrive home until after the search was complete. . . . And as detailed above, Sheahan testified at this deposition that he did not see whether consent was obtained, and only assumed it was. Sheahan’s deposition testimony, post-search statements, and interrogatory responses are all admissible against him as substantive evidence (that is, may be considered for their truth, not just mere credibility impeachment), and Plaintiffs would be permitted to cross-examine him about those statements at trial. In sum, Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that Sheahan knew that consent to enter and search Plaintiffs’ residence was not obtained.