On Jan. 12, 1984, plaintiff Frank O’Connell, 27, a woodworker, was arrested in the shooting death of Jay French, a maintenance worker. French was shot two times while in the parking lot of the State Street apartment complex, in South Pasadena, where he resided with his wife. French was pronounced dead at the scene. French’s wife informed detectives that her husband had been engaged in a long-standing, disputed, custody battle over a son he had in common with his ex-wife, Jeannie Lyon. Homicide detectives with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department located several witnesses at the scene of the crime, including several who identified the getaway vehicle as a yellow Pinto, as well as one eyewitness, a tenant in the apartment complex, who allegedly had an unobstructed view of the shooter from only 20 feet away. The tenant eyewitness told detectives that the shooter was a tall, white male; in his mid-30’s with brown hair; and between 6-foot, 1-inch and 6-foot, 3-inches tall. The tenant eyewitness told detectives that after French was shot and the suspect had fled the scene, he heard the victim state that the shooter was the “guy in the yellow Pinto.” The tenant witness also claimed that the last words the victim said before he died were, “This had something to do with Jeannie.” Neither the weapon used in the murder nor the vehicle were recovered. When detectives presented the tenant eyewitness with a six-photo photographic array, which included a picture of O’Connell, the tenant eyewitness identified O’Connell as the person who had shot and killed the victim. As a result, O’Connell was arrested. O’Connell elected to have a bench trial, rather than a jury trial. At both the preliminary hearing and the bench trial, the tenant eyewitness testified that nothing obstructed his view of the murder and that he positively identified O’Connell as the shooter. On April 6, 1985, O’Connell was convicted for French’s murder and he was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. O’Connell, who continued to maintain his innocence, contacted Centurion Ministries, a nonprofit organization that works on behalf of inmates who claim they were wrongfully convicted, and asked for help. During its investigation, Centurion learned that the tenant eyewitness may have had a partially obstructed view of the shooting. The tenant eyewitness testified during the underlying criminal trial that he was not wearing his eyeglasses at the time, but that he was told by his doctor that he did not even need eyeglasses. The tenant eyewitness also told Centurion that he was not told by the detectives that one of his options when shown the six-photo photographic array was to not pick any of the photographs if he did not recognize the shooter. At a new hearing in 2012, a judge determined that O’Connell should be freed. The judge ruled that the detectives may have improperly influenced witnesses and failed to give the defense evidence pointing to another possible suspect, a violation of the Brady rule, which requires the government to turn over favorable evidence to the defense. After O’Connell was freed, sheriff’s detectives asked the district attorney’s office to refile murder charges against him, but the prosecutors declined. Thus, the French case remains an open murder investigation, and prosecutors have not charged anyone else since O’Connell was released. In 2013, O’Connell filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the one surviving detective, J.D. Smith; Eric Parra, as the administrator of the estate of the other detective, Gilbert Parra; and the detectives’ employer, the county of Los Angeles. O’Connell alleged that J.D. Smith and Gilbert Parra withheld evidence and provided misleading information during his trial, in violation of his civil rights, and that the county was liable for the detectives’ actions. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that issues were identified by Centurion in the murder investigation that was not disclosed to O’Connell’s criminal defense counsel prior to, or during, the murder trial. Specifically, counsel contended that the detectives refused to reveal evidence impeaching the statements of the three eyewitnesses, as well as information about a previous attempt on French’s life. Counsel contended that the undisclosed information was noted in an internal South Pasadena Police Department memorandum, which included other information that was allegedly not turned over to O’Connell’s criminal defense counsel during the murder trial. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that the memorandum addressed an anonymous phone call that was received in 1984 by a male who claimed that French’s ex-wife, Lyon, had paid to have French killed after she learned that French had been awarded custody of their son. Defense counsel noted that although there was a claim that the homicide detectives did not provide exculpatory evidence to the plaintiff’s criminal defense counsel during the civil deposition, O’Connell’s criminal defense counsel admitted to having notes in his own handwriting with the name of the known driver involved in the previous murder attempt on French and having knowledge of his status as being in custody in Oregon state. Defense counsel also noted that the plaintiff’s criminal defense counsel stated that there was a request for an investigation into travel plans between Oregon and Los Angeles to see if travel was feasible to commit the murder, but that it is unknown what outcome the defense counsel reached by the investigation., One year after the shooting of French, Frank O’Connell, a former football star at Glendora High School, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. O’Connell, now 59, works at an automobile repair shop in Colorado. He’s spent the last five years rebuilding his relationship with his son and he has had to navigate a more technological world since being released. O’Connell’s son, plaintiff Nicholas O’Connell, was 4 years old when his father was incarcerated. He claimed they were only able to see each other when Nicholas O’Connell was able to visit his father in custody. Thus, Frank O’Connell claimed a loss of a familial relationship with his son and the O’Connells both claimed they suffered from emotional distress. In addition, Frank O’Connell claimed he suffered various physical while he was in custody.