Blog

The Takeaway

In Zambrano v. City of Joliet, 141 F. 4th 828 (7th Cir. 2025), the Seventh Circuit affirmed that even if police reports contain false statements, there’s no Fourteenth Amendment due process violation unless there’s sufficient evidence the officer knew the statements were false.

Introduction

Fabricated evidence—such as false statements in police reports—have long given rise to wrongful conviction claims under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 914 F.3d 472, 479 (7th Cir. 2019). Citing Patrick v. City of Chicago, 974 F. 3d 824 (7th Cir. 2020), the Zambrano court outlined the elements of such a claim:

1. Defendant deliberately falsified evidence in bad faith.
2. The evidence was used at plaintiff’s criminal trial.
3. The evidence was material.
4. Plaintiff was damaged as a result.

Zambrano, 141 F.4th at 830.

In Zambrano, the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to meet the first and third requirements and affirmed summary judgment for the officer accused of making false statements in his report. In doing so, the court clarified that the basis of fabricated evidence due process claims is not merely that evidence is false, but also that the defendant knew the evidence was false and used it anyway.

Case Background

Plaintiff Jesus Zambrano was convicted of first-degree murder in 2013, but the conviction was later overturned due to a jury instruction error. After his release, Zambrano filed a § 1983 lawsuit against Detective Patrick Schumacher alleging that Schumacher fabricated evidence in his police report by falsely reporting that Zambrano gave him factual details Zambrano denied providing.

Specifically, Schumacher’s report stated that Zambrano told him the names of friends he was with the afternoon before the murder and the location of his girlfriend’s apartment where they were gathered. Zambrano admitted he was at that apartment with those friends but denied giving Schumacher the information. Zambrano brought a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Schumacher based on the alleged fabrications.

Appellate Court Ruling

The court held that even if there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude the report’s statements were false, Schumacher didn’t violate the Fourteenth Amendment because Zambrano offered no evidence that Schumacher knew the statements were false or otherwise acted in bad faith. The court also found insufficient evidence to conclude that the fabricated evidence was material.

Ordinarily, state of mind (i.e., whether a defendant acted in bad faith) is a question of fact for a jury to decide. Id. at 831. Here, however, the court decided the issue as a matter of law. It explained that even if the report’s statements were false, Zambrano had to show Schumacher knew they were false but intentionally included them anyway rather than mistakenly or inadvertently doing so.

There was no evidence Schumacher knew the statements were false. Id. Schumacher wrote the report at 2:30 a.m. after a long day of interviewing witnesses. Moreover, other witnesses had given Schumacher the same information. Therefore, it was possible Schumacher mistakenly attributed the information to Zambrano instead of the other witnesses. Given the lack of any dispute about the friends’ identities or the apartment’s location, the court concluded that “the circumstances [don’t] even allow an inference that Schumacher knowingly misrepresented Zambrano’s statement.” Therefore, no Fourteenth Amendment due process violation occurred. Id. at 832.

The court also held no violation occurred because the alleged fabrication was immaterial to Zambrano’s conviction. “If the fabricated evidence was immaterial, it cannot be said to have caused an unconstitutional conviction and deprivation of liberty.” Id. Evidence is material if there is any “reasonable likelihood the evidence affected the judgment of the jury.” Id. The court noted the alleged fabrication was not an issue at trial and thus it did not affect the jury’s verdict. Id.