and McIntyre’s testimony is cast into doubt by the absence of the key statement in his police report from that day. The Court does not determine whether McIntyre’s testimony or Stephens’ notes are credible; instead, it merely finds that they are not overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that Deskovic made the ejaculation statement. Thus, the Court concludes that a genuine issue of material fact exists, and summary judgment is therefore inappropriate. See Ricciuti 124 F.3d at 130 (“Here, a reasonable jury could find, based on the evidence, that [defendants] violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights by conspiring to fabricate and forward to prosecutors a known false confession almost certain to influence a jury’s verdict.”); see also Jocks, 316 F.3d at 138 (<HOLDING>). 2. Qualified Immunity Stephens also argues
holding prior testimony was admissible where the witness who first testified during a suppression hearing was murdered after he testified where the defendant was represented by counsel who had extensively crossexamined the witness holding that a mistrial was not required after a police officer testified that he had once chased the defendant after the defendant had fired a gun where the testimony was a logical response to the prosecutors questions the statement was not made maliciously the evidence against the defendant was great and the jury was instructed to disregard the testimony holding mistrial not warranted for improper statement by police officer where court sustained defendants objection and admonished jury to disregard statement and where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that summary judgment was inappropriate where plaintiff testified that statement written by defendant was false and defendant testified that statement was verbatim and accurate because although there was certainly not overwhelming evidence of falsification a reasonable jury would be entitled to credit plaintiffs testimony and reject defendants holding that defendants false statement was material even though the grand jury was not certain that the defendant had lied until several weeks later when three witnesses testified contrary to the defendant