Facts

Plaintiff Harold C. Hall filed a Fifth Amendment coerced confession claim. He alleged that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated during an interrogation on Sept. 11, 1985. The confession was used to prosecute and convict him of rape and murder. In 1990, Hall sought to exclude the admission of his confession in a California Evidence Code Section 402 hearing. Plaintiff's motion was denied and he challenged the judge's admission of the Sept. 11 confession on direct appeal and in multiple state and federal court habeas petitions.

In 2004, plaintiff's federal habeas petition was granted by the 9th Circuit, who found that prosecutors had relied on falsified notes created by a jailhouse informant to validate plaintiff's confession, therefore denying plaintiff due process. The court remanded to the district court to grant plaintiff's writ unless the state court granted him a new trial. The 9th Circuit found no merit to the claim Hall's confession was coerced. The conviction was overturned. Plaintiff was released in August 2004, after approximately 18 years in prison. After the two appeals to the 9th Circuit from the granting of summary judgments, in 2013, the 9th Circuit stated that plaintiff should have "the opportunity to amend his complaint and let a jury decide whether he deserves monetary compensation for his unlawful incarceration," prompting the plaintiff to bring this instant civil suit.

Defendants, LAPD detectives Ken Crocker and Mark Arneson, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis of the collateral estoppel effect of the 402 hearing held in 1990.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Hall contended that his rights were violated when his confession was coerced in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants claimed that Hall was barred by collateral estoppel from challenging the voluntaries of his confession based on the fact he previously litigated the same issue in an Evidence Code section 402 hearing and lost.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded millions of dollars for Hall's 18 years of incarceration.

Result

Summary judgment granted in favor of defense.

Other Information

This is the third Motion for Summary Judgment granted in the case since it was filed in 2005. The two prior Motions for Summary Judgment involving claims for malicious prosecution and deliberate fabrication of evidence were appealed to the 9th Circuit. Between the two appeals, the grounds for granting the motions for summary judgment were eventually all affirmed. Plaintiff stated that they are appealing.