Navigate Up
Sign In

159093 - Samuel Jerome v Michael Crum

Samuel Jerome,

 

Christopher Desmond

 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 

v

(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)

 

 

(Oakland – Langford-Morris, D.)

 

Michael Crum and City of Berkley,

 

Mary Massaron

 

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Summary

Plaintiff was accused of criminal sexual conduct by his step-daughter and bound over to face the charges, but a mistrial was declared mid-trial when it was discovered that defendant Michael Crum, the officer in charge of the investigation, had failed to disclose a videotaped interview with the complainant. The prosecutor ultimately decided not to re-try plaintiff. Plaintiff sued Crum and his employer, the City of Berkley, in federal court, alleging various federal and state law claims. The federal court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims (false arrest, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and gross negligence) and eventually granted summary judgment to defendants on the federal claims (false arrest/imprisonment, malicious prosecution, denial of due process, and failure to adequately train officers), concluding that the existence of probable cause to arrest and charge plaintiff defeated the false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims, and that Crum was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not act with reckless disregard for the truth. Meanwhile, plaintiff sued defendants for the state law claims in circuit court, but that court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition on the ground of collateral estoppel because of the federal judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion, over one judge’s dissent regarding the gross negligence claim. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal to address whether the circuit court erred in granting summary disposition to defendants on the ground of collateral estoppel. ​