Lovelace family responds to lawsuit motion - Quincy News, Weather, Sports, and Radio

Lovelace family responds to lawsuit motion

Curtis Lovelace during his second trial. Curtis Lovelace during his second trial.

Members of the Lovelace family named in a lawsuit against the City of Quincy and others responded recently to a motion for partial dismissal.

The motion, filed on behalf of Curtis Lovelace, his wife Christine and his children - Larson, Lincoln and Logan - was filed in U.S. District Court on Friday. It was filed in response to a motion filed earlier this month by the "Quincy defendants."

Those defendants are the following:

  • Adam Gibson (Quincy Police Detective)
  • Robert Copley (Quincy Police Chief)
  • John Summers (Quincy Police Sergeant)
  • Dina Dreyer (Quincy Police Lieutenant)
  • Anjanette Biswell (Quincy Police Detective)
  • City of Quincy
  • Unknown Quincy Police officers

Adams County state's attorney Gary Farha and coroner James Keller were also named in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, which contains 11 counts, was filed in May. The suit claims Lovelace was deprived "of his constitutional right to a fair trial by withholding and suppressing exculpatory and impeachment evidence and by fabricating evidence against Plaintiff."

The suit was filed less than two months after Lovelace was acquitted of murdering his first wife Cory. The trial, his second, was held in Sangamon County.

Lovelace's first trial was held last year and ended in a hung jury.

In the motion for partial dismissal, the "Quincy defendants" are asking the court to dismiss 10 of the 11 counts "for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted."

The response asks that the court deny the motion for partial dismissal and makes the following arguments:

  • Plaintiffs’ Complaint Satisfies the Requirements of Federal Notice Pleading
  • Curtis Lovelace Has Properly Stated a Claim for Violations of His Due Process
  • Rights During the Course of the Investigation of this Case and During His First Trial
  • There is Now a Federal Malicious Prosecution Claim in the Seventh Circuit
  • The Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine Does Not Bar Plaintiffs’ Conspiracy Claims
  • Plaintiffs’ Remaining Survive Because They Rely on Properly Alleged Underlying Constitutional Claims

The full response is below:

Powered by Frankly